# The Hobbit Trilogy



## Bart (Sep 28, 2009)

*There be spoilers afoot here. If you have yet to read the Hobbit best you probably tread most cautiously while venturing through the comments below.​*​



> Bilbo Baggins is a hobbit who enjoys a comfortable, unambitious life, rarely travelling any futher than his pantry or his cellar. But his contentment is disturbed when the wizard, Gandalf, and a company of dwarfs arrive on his doorstep one day to whisk him away on an adventure. They have a plot to raid the treasure hoard guarded by Smaug the Magnicifent, a large and very dangerous dragon. Bilbo is most relucant to take part in this quest, but he surpises even himself by his resourcefulness and his skill as a burglar!



*Cast*
Ian McKellen as *Gandalf the Grey*
Hugo Weaving as *Elrond*
Andy Serkis as *Gollum*

*Important Websites*

Wikipedia
IMDB
The Hobbit

Guillermo del Toro confirmed that filming for 'The Hobbit' will start in March of 2010.


----------



## Tobirama (Sep 28, 2009)

Is it true Christopher Lee will be voicing Smaug?


----------



## excellence153 (Sep 28, 2009)

Movie's gonna be sex.

SEX

Oscars.


----------



## Bart (Sep 28, 2009)

Tobirama said:


> Is it true Christopher Lee will be voicing Smaug?



It was suggested, but I'm not entirely sure. Christopher Lee voicing Smaug would be awesome, however, I'd rather see another actor voice him.

Btw, I entirely agree, Excellence153  Especially with Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh.


----------



## excellence153 (Sep 28, 2009)

Bartallen2 said:


> It was suggested, but I'm not entirely sure. Christopher Lee voicing Smaug would be awesome, however, I'd rather see another actor voice him.
> 
> Btw, I entirely agree, Excellence153  Especially with Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh.



You're forgetting Del Toro!


----------



## Dream Brother (Sep 28, 2009)

Big fan of the LotR movies. Hope this one lives up to that standard. (I remember enjoying the book, too.)


----------



## Bart (Sep 28, 2009)

excellence153 said:


> You're forgetting Del Toro!



Del Toro  

Yeah, of course, he's a spectacular director. I just hope that he will allow, with Jackson as executive producer, The Hobbit to maintain the sense and similarites of Middle Earth that Jackson had captured.


----------



## Reaper of the Mist (Sep 28, 2009)

I what to see this movie, I just they can make is all.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 28, 2009)

I just dislike that they're splitting the movies into two parts... Moneygrubbers...
I'm just glad that Guillermo is directing it... He did a wonderful job with Pans Labyrinth.


----------



## Thomaatj (Sep 28, 2009)

Looking forward to it! Del toro is great for these kind of movies me thinks


----------



## Graham Aker (Sep 28, 2009)

Aww, they start filming in 2010. So most likely we'll see a late 2011 or early to mid 2012 release?

And this being split into 2 parts means they'll be able to put in much of the books content into the film, which should be good.


----------



## Roy (Sep 28, 2009)

Del Toro at the helm and Jackson producing is auto-win. Ive been waiting for this movie for a loooooong time.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 28, 2009)

Nightfall said:


> I just dislike that they're splitting the movies into two parts... Moneygrubbers...
> I'm just glad that Guillermo is directing it... He did a wonderful job with Pans Labyrinth.



The hell are you on about? 

You do realize that if it was a 2-hour movie then it would be complete and utter shite since all of the important scenes would have to be glanced upon?


----------



## Emperor Joker (Sep 28, 2009)

Hot damn, i've been waiting to here some news about this, I wonder, where they cut off part will be for the first movie.


----------



## Tobirama (Sep 28, 2009)

Bartallen2 said:


> however, I'd rather see another actor voice him.



Why?


----------



## Andre (Sep 28, 2009)

Oh shit, what a coincidence. I'm almost finished reading the Hobbit now. Can't wait for the movie.


----------



## Roy (Sep 28, 2009)

Graham Aker said:


> Aww, they start filming in 2010. So most likely we'll see a late 2011 or early to mid 2012 release?
> 
> And this being split into 2 parts means they'll be able to put in much of the books content into the film, which should be good.



The plan is to release it like they did with LotR. Release it in December 2010 and part two is December 2011.


----------



## Trias (Sep 28, 2009)

Cuz he already voiced a character in the original trilogy, as well as playing him. I'll just keep thinking of Saruman if he voices Smaug.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Sep 28, 2009)

Trias said:


> Cuz he already voiced a character in the original trilogy, as well as playing him. I'll just keep thinking of Saruman if he voices Smaug.



The deep voice of Lee would be perfect for Smaug though.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 28, 2009)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> The hell are you on about?
> 
> You do realize that if it was a 2-hour movie then it would be complete and utter shite since all of the important scenes would have to be glanced upon?



Given that it is a movie adaption, that's bound to happen in most cases anyway. But you refreshed my memory of the book, true theres a lot of important scenes that will take up plenty of screen-time, I wouldn't mind if they skipped certain scenes though...
But you're right, I wasn't thinking straight...

The fellowship of the ring completely skipped Tom Bombadil and the old forest... Which was pretty interesting imo...


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Sep 28, 2009)

Where did the director and producers decide they were splitting the book at?


Trias said:


> Cuz he already voiced a character in the original trilogy, as well as playing him. I'll just keep thinking of Saruman if he voices Smaug.


John Rhys-Davies was the face and voice (and sometimes the body) of Gimli and did the voice for Treebeard, but few people would realize without it being pointed out.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 28, 2009)

Nightfall said:


> Given that it is a movie adaption, that's bound to happen in most cases anyway. But you refreshed my memory of the book, true theres a lot of important scenes that will take up plenty of screen-time, I wouldn't mind if they skipped certain scenes though...
> But you're right, I wasn't thinking straight...
> 
> The fellowship of the ring completely skipped Tom Bombadil and the old forest... Which was pretty interesting imo...



Those scenes weren't totally necessary to the overall story. Yeah, I miss Tom and his lyrics but removing him didn't have a major impact on the story


----------



## Bart (Sep 29, 2009)

Nightfall said:


> The fellowship of the ring completely skipped Tom Bombadil and the old forest... Which was pretty interesting imo...



Tom Bombadil and Goldberry didn't really play a role which influenced the Hobbits massively, whereas Beorn in the Hobbit has an important role, not to mention he is arguably one of my favourite characters.

I believe that Beorn should be played by Russell Crowe


----------



## Roy (Sep 29, 2009)

I cant wait till they release a trailer.


----------



## Bart (Sep 29, 2009)

Roy said:


> I cant wait till they release a trailer.



Definitely, Roy  I personally cannot wait until we find out who will be Bilbo Baggins.


----------



## Narcissus (Sep 29, 2009)

So they are finally doing The Hobbit. Good to know. the book was excellent and I'm really interested in seeing Smaug.



Nightfall said:


> I just dislike that they're splitting the movies into two parts... Moneygrubbers...



I'm glad they are splitting it into two movies. It will make the experience last longer for me. And knowing that  the LotR movies have actually maintained a high level of quality, I'm willing to pay a few more dollars to see both.


----------



## Nightfall (Sep 29, 2009)

Yeah I can understand that, and I was already called out on it... I'm just curious where and how well they will end part 1.

And there's still the matter of how good they focus on the important scenes... The trolls in the forest for example, shouldn't take too much time.. As funny as it might be...
Could just be omitted as well...

Looking forward to Bilbo encountering Gollum.


----------



## Yasha (Sep 29, 2009)

Is that confirmation the latest? Because I recently heard that the project may be put on hold because MGM is on the verge of bankruptcy. I hope it will go in accordance with the schedule, because I sure don't want to wait until I'm past 30 to watch this.

Also, I'm wondering how they are going to split it into two films, because as far as I can remember, the Hobbit is less than one-third as thick as the LotR, and its plot is nowhere near as sophisticated as the latter. Either they will put in more details, or they will add in some extras, or both.


----------



## Bart (Sep 29, 2009)

Yasha said:


> Also, I'm wondering how they are going to split it into two films, because as far as I can remember, the Hobbit is less than one-third as thick as the LotR, and its plot is nowhere near as sophisticated as the latter. Either they will put in more details, or they will add in some extras, or both.



Yasha, if you asked a typical person during in the past that there were plans of a film adapation of LotR they would either laugh in your face or believe you were mad, due to the vastless of it.

The Hobbit is a vastly complex tale, but it requires quite a lot of insightfulness and immersion, as a lack of such things would create the impression of something less and unsophisticated. Although not as long as the LotR's, it won't be an easy task to film and script, that you can be sure of.

Even in Jackson's adapation, alot of things were changed, and worked rather well, but the Hobbit will be far easier, not to mention they could add references, as you suggested, to the White Council, especially the Council ridding Sauron from Mirkwood.


----------



## Bathroom_Mop (Sep 29, 2009)

Why is peter jackson not directing this? He is behind the success of the LotR movies and did an amazing job. Why replace something that works


----------



## DisgustingIdiot (Sep 29, 2009)

Because he's going to do the second half with the battles and shit.

Edit: NVM I don't know where I read that but apparently I'm wrong.


----------



## Felix (Sep 29, 2009)

Superb, but wasn't The Hobbit quite short? I can't really imagine it being split


----------



## Wesley (Sep 29, 2009)

Smaug got jobbed.  I hope he does more than trade banter with Bilbo and get shot.


----------



## Roy (Sep 29, 2009)

Rob` said:


> Because he's going to do the second half with the battles and shit.
> 
> Edit: NVM I don't know where I read that but apparently I'm wrong.



I remember him saying that he never wants to do a project as big and long as LotR, but I don't see why he wouldn't want to direct The Hobbit. Maybe he just didn't' want to.


----------



## krome (Sep 29, 2009)

Finally.  I've been waiting for this.


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Sep 29, 2009)

Yasha said:


> Also, I'm wondering how they are going to split it into two films, because as far as I can remember, the Hobbit is less than one-third as thick as the LotR, and its plot is nowhere near as sophisticated as the latter. Either they will put in more details, or they will add in some extras, or both.


There was mention of the second film helping to bridge the gap by including events from between _The Hobbit_ and _The Lord of the Rings_.

And couldn't Bilbo just be played by the actor who portrayed him in _The Lord of the Rings_?


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 29, 2009)

Ian Holm, the actor that played Bilbo in LotR, is 78 and has a tuft of snow-white hair on the top of his head


----------



## Dimezanime88 (Sep 29, 2009)

Is The Hobbit some kinda story after the events of LOTR?


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 29, 2009)

Dimezanime20 said:


> Is The Hobbit some kinda story after the events of LOTR?



It's the prequel


----------



## Emperor Joker (Sep 30, 2009)

Dimezanime20 said:


> Is The Hobbit some kinda story after the events of LOTR?



More like it comes before it, it sets up the events of LOTR.

Go read it...Now


----------



## Roy (Sep 30, 2009)

I heard all the actors that came out in LotR will also come out in The Hobbit.


----------



## Bart (Sep 30, 2009)

Roy said:


> I heard all the actors that came out in LotR will also come out in The Hobbit.



Aragorn and Arwen could most definitely make an appearance at Rivendale, due to Aragorn being a Dunedain. Legolas could make an appearance at the Battle of Five Armies, due to the fact his father is Thranduil.

My fingers are crossed that the meeting of the White Council banishing Sauron from Mirkwood is included, ergo, meaning that Galadriel will undoubtedly make an appearance.


----------



## Roy (Sep 30, 2009)

Yup. I have high hopes for this movie. :3


----------



## Yasha (Sep 30, 2009)

Bartallen2 said:


> Aragorn and Arwen could most definitely make an appearance at Rivendale, due to Aragorn being a Dunedain. Legolas could make an appearance at the Battle of Five Armies, due to the fact his father is Thranduil.
> 
> My fingers are crossed that the meeting of the White Council banishing Sauron from Mirkwood is included, ergo, meaning that Galadriel will undoubtedly make an appearance.



According to JRR's timeline, Aragorn was only 10 when the story in The Hobbit took place.


----------



## Wesley (Sep 30, 2009)

Yasha said:


> According to JRR's timeline, Aragorn was only 10 when the story in The Hobbit took place.



And Frodo was 50 when LotR happened.


----------



## Felix (Sep 30, 2009)

I just remembered. Didn't the Return of the King book include a huge chronology Appendix that bridged the gap between Hobbit and LoTR?

Perhaps they will use that. I'm skeptical about the inclusion of the White Council since it was briefly mentioned in the Hobbit, and I think they won't mess with it


----------



## Bart (Sep 30, 2009)

Yasha said:


> According to JRR's timeline, Aragorn was only 10 when the story in The Hobbit took place.



Did I at all mention Viggo Mortensen? However, I believe the Aragorn's timeline was changed by Peter Jackson in the Two Towers. I am very well aware of the timeline with regard to the Lord of the Rings.

Frodo was 53 at the end of Return of the King, however, one could state that Hobbit's age differently to that of humans, not to mention that Bilbo is of a similar age at the beginning of the Hobbit.


----------



## Bart (Sep 30, 2009)

Felix said:


> I'm skeptical about the inclusion of the White Council since it was briefly mentioned in the Hobbit, and I think they won't mess with it



That definitely won't be missed, considering such scenes were added to the LotR's where Gandalf went off and about. Gandalf wandering off and appearing without any sort of visable explanation would be most folly.

P.S. I can't wait to hear Howard Shore's score  Hopefully 'Concerning Hobbits' will be a part of the introduction to Bag End.


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Sep 30, 2009)

So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff


----------



## Bart (Sep 30, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff



Yeah, there is quite alot of magic included in the Hobbit. One scene that's really awesome, involves Gandalf in a tree whilst creating and throwing burning pine-cone grenades.


----------



## excellence153 (Sep 30, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff


----------



## Emperor Joker (Sep 30, 2009)

Bartallen2 said:


> That definitely won't be missed, considering such scenes were added to the LotR's where Gandalf went off and about. Gandalf wandering off and appearing without any sort of visable explanation would be most folly.
> 
> P.S. I can't wait to hear Howard Shore's score  Hopefully 'Concerning Hobbits' will be a part of the introduction to Bag End.



Damn I hope they keep all the songs from the book in, I want to hear Carefully, carefully with the plates.



Sasuke_Bateman said:


> So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff



very much so, being LOTR's prequal it will have plenty of magic in it.


----------



## Felix (Sep 30, 2009)

I consider LOTR low fantasy since there isn't much magic actually 
Unlike some series where everyone shits magic


----------



## Sasuke_Bateman (Sep 30, 2009)

excellence153 said:


>



What? Sometime they hardly use it. That's why I wasn't so in love with LOTRs, the lack of magic. Epic duels with magic!


----------



## Wesley (Sep 30, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff



Yeah, one guy turns into a giant fucking bear and rips orcs to pieces by the dozens.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Sep 30, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> What? Sometime they hardly use it. That's why I wasn't so in love with LOTRs, the lack of magic. Epic duels with magic!



It's got magic, just not kind, where people stroll around blowing up mountains, we've still got Gandalf and hopefully the rest of the White council (if they decide to film them booting Sauron's ass out of Mirkwood), there's also Beorn who can transform into a bear.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 30, 2009)

Sasuke_Bateman said:


> So it's like LOTRs? Will they use magic and stuff



They will take off their robe and wizard hate


----------



## Wesley (Sep 30, 2009)

Emperor Joker said:


> It's got magic, just not kind, where people stroll around blowing up mountains, we've still got Gandalf and hopefully the rest of the White council (if they decide to film them booting Sauron's ass out of Mirkwood), there's also Beorn who can transform into a *giant fucking* bear.



Fixed it for you.


----------



## omg laser pew pew! (Sep 30, 2009)

Beorn is just made of pure win, he _*single-handedly*_ wins the Battle of Five Armys with nothing but his sheer body hair and manliness


----------



## Bart (Oct 1, 2009)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> Beorn is just made of pure win, he _*single-handedly*_ wins the Battle of Five Armys with nothing but his sheer body hair and manliness



Utterly agreed


----------



## Wesley (Oct 1, 2009)

omg laser pew pew! said:


> Beorn is just made of pure win, he _*single-handedly*_ wins the Battle of Five Armys with nothing but his sheer body hair and manliness



If I remember correctly, he was the moth that helped to rescue Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring.


----------



## Felix (Oct 1, 2009)

Wesley said:


> If I remember correctly, he was the moth that helped to rescue Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring.



Wasn't that the Brown Wizard?


----------



## Bart (Oct 1, 2009)

Felix said:


> Wasn't that the Brown Wizard?



Yep, Radagast. Good observations, Felix 

The Moth would logically have been a messenger of his.


----------



## Wesley (Oct 1, 2009)

Felix said:


> Wasn't that the Brown Wizard?



I thought Beorn could turn into other things than the bear? (I was 11 when I last read the Hobbit.)


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 1, 2009)

Radagast did never get enough attention... No extensive role for him in any of the books, a pity...


----------



## Bart (Oct 1, 2009)

Nightfall said:


> Radagast did never get enough attention... No extensive role for him in any of the books, a pity...



Radagast was important, but I don't think his involvement within the Fellowship would have been as important, due to Jackson's slight changing of Tolkien's timeline, hence why they opted for the Moth.


----------



## Nightfall (Oct 1, 2009)

Was there even enough information written about him, outside of random notes left by Tolkien, to actually portray him on film?


----------



## Bart (Oct 2, 2009)

Nightfall said:


> Was there even enough information written about him, outside of random notes left by Tolkien, to actually portray him on film?



There was quite alot of reasonbly sized information, and all I have to say is that Radagast better make an appearance with the White Council to banish Sauron from Mirkwood in the Hobbit. 

Felix is sort of correct as Beorn and Radagast were friends.


----------



## Bart (Oct 14, 2009)

Wesley said:


> If I remember correctly, he was the moth that helped to rescue Gandalf in Fellowship of the Ring.



Yeah, he sort of was


----------



## masamune1 (May 31, 2010)

This film is coming to nothing. Del Toro is gone and they don't even have a script, or the go-ahead from a studio. Most people have forgotten about it.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 31, 2010)

Yeah, it's in production hell. Shame too, as Del Toro was an awesome choice as director.

I think it will be made just as long as they do it soon. It's too big of a money maker for people to just drop it. I mainly worry about Sir Ian McKellen, as he aint exactly young......But yeah, I fear for its future.


----------



## Roy (May 31, 2010)

Del Toro is gone as director? Damn. Sucks. :/


----------



## OniTasku (May 31, 2010)

Here's the article for anyone that wants to read it:



> *Guillermo Del Toro Is No Longer Directing The Hobbit!*
> May 30th, 2010
> 
> Through TheOneRing.net, Guillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson announced today that Del Toro is stepping down as director for the upcoming adaptation of The Hobbit and it's proposed sequel, but will continue to co-write the screenplays.
> ...





This is a real shame. The future of these movies are now (once again) up in the air. Not good, man. The Hobbit will never see the light of day at this rate.


----------



## EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! (May 31, 2010)

Read about him quitting on aint it cool news - my initial dismay was wiped away by the mention of Death: the High Cost of Living may be on his plate. OMG. Shoulda quit sooner.


----------



## g_core18 (May 31, 2010)

I hope Peter Jackson takes over.


----------



## Roy (May 31, 2010)

It's only right that PJ takes the helm.


----------



## MartialHorror (May 31, 2010)

If I recall though, he was all irked about not getting all the money he was owed(or at least he had to fight for it), which caused a rift between him and the studio(or something like that).

They barely could get him to produce. Plus, I think Jackson is trying to be careful about the movies hes doing. In the last 7 years, he's only directed like 2 films.....


----------



## Narcissus (May 31, 2010)

Hm, well that sucks.

I really hope it gets made eventually. I loved reading the book and would really love to see a movie made out of it.


----------



## Yasha (Jun 1, 2010)

Oh please, New Line Cinema, sort out whatever problems you have with Peter Jackson and get him to direct The Hobbit. He's the only suitable candidate we LotR fans acknowledge.


----------



## Shade (Jun 1, 2010)

Holy balls, is that what he used to look like in your signature there? ^

He's shed some pounds.


----------



## Ennoea (Jun 1, 2010)

New Line tried to act greedy and this where it got them. Beg for forgivness you fools, and get fatty back on board.


----------



## Ice Cream (Jun 1, 2010)

Fenix Down said:


> Read about him quitting on aint it cool news - my initial dismay was wiped away by the mention of *Death: the High Cost of Living* may be on his plate. OMG. Shoulda quit sooner.



They're still making a death film from the sandman series? O.o

Heard about it years ago and then figured it was canceled due to
the lack of development.


----------



## Yasha (Jun 1, 2010)

Shade said:


> Holy balls, is that what he used to look like in your signature there? ^
> 
> He's shed some pounds.



He's shed a lot of pounds recently.



But he was still obese when that picture was taken.




Ennoea said:


> New Line tried to act greedy and this where it got them. Beg for forgivness you fools, and get fatty back on board.



Exactly. They'd better get down on their knees, those greedy bastards. I don't want anyone other than Peter Jackson to direct the film. They could ruin the LotR's legacy.


----------



## DragonSlayer (Jun 1, 2010)

They need to get Peter Jackson to direct the movies, period.


----------



## The Boss (Jun 1, 2010)

I agree.. Peter Jackson needs to be director..  ... but since he is involved.. it should be decent.. right?


----------



## Time Expired (Jun 1, 2010)

Well I had mixed feelings about Del Toro for this.  Cannot truly fathom anyone behind the wheel other than Jackson.  Did such a good job with the others.  Del Toro might have really pulled some darkness into this, but Jackson has a good handle on the stories.  IMO it should be him.


----------



## Man in Black (Jun 1, 2010)

Del Toro was the PERFECT director for these movies, yes even better than Peter Jackson.

But if Del Toro doesn't come back the next best director would be Peter Jackson, but I'm super disappointed Del Toro isn't going to be directing, could've been amazing.


----------



## Pipe (Jun 1, 2010)

so the movie has been shut down or what?


----------



## Taleran (Jun 3, 2010)

OniTasku said:


> Here's the article for anyone that wants to read it:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Does that mean it Hellboy BPRD time sooner

YES PLEASE!


----------



## Emperor Joker (Jun 3, 2010)

Del Toro leaving makes me sad...but on the otherhand we have a good chance of getting another Hellboy movie sooner...which makes up for it kinda


----------



## Superrazien (Jun 4, 2010)

Well since Del Toro stepped down I really hope Jackson steps up, cause other than Jackson Del Toro was the only one I would trust with the Hobbit.


----------



## Bart (Jun 4, 2010)

> *It now appears that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson could* wind up directing the two-part Rings prequel, The Hobbit, after all. Following the decision by director Guillermo del Toro to walk away from the production because of the delays brought about by the protracted sale of MGM, which owns the rights to the The Hobbit and is coproducing the movie with Warner Bros., Jackson?s manager said that prior commitments to other studios would prevent Jackson from directing The Hobbit. But Jackson told New Zealand?s The Dominion Post today (Tuesday), "If that?s what I have to do to protect Warner Bros? investment, then obviously that?s one angle which I?ll explore." And it did appear that it was unlikely that another top director could be brought on board until after the sale of MGM is completed ? whenever that may be. And even Jackson himself might find himself involved in making another film by that time. "The other studios may not let me out of the contracts," he told the Dominion Post. "The key thing is that we don?t intend to shut the project down," he added. Meanwhile, Del Toro told the New Zealand newspaper that he had moved his family to Wellington two years ago to work on the script and the development of the movie and noted that he had dreamed of turning The Hobbit into a movie from the time he was a child. "So it was very personal to me," he said. "I know [the delays have] been very frustrating for everybody."



*Source:* 

So it'll be a last restort on Jackson's part, if a director's not found.


----------



## Vanity (Jun 4, 2010)

I'm just glad that this is actually happening.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2010)

I was hoping they'd get Jerry Bruckheimer to do it.

I dislike the Peter Jackson rendition of LOTR.  The story was watered down and a lot of important elements were left out.  Character individuality was reduced to nil in order to satisfy some strange notion that scenes needed to be recycled and regurgitated similar to storylines of pre-existing movies.

It seemed like Gimli was reduced to comic relief in order to satisfy some corporate notion that movies with 1 character assigned to said purpose do better at the box office.  And, it seems like Strider/Aragorn being 70-80 years old during LOTR was omitted in order to allow the audience to more easily relate to his character.  And, the width and depth of Tolkien's world was more or less dumbed down and "idiot proofed" in order to make it accessible to a larger demographic.

Jerry Bruckheimer would have done a more intelligent job of idiot proofing the genre.

I really hope Hobbits I and II aren't as bad as LOTR, was...

If they are I won't bother renting...

Oh, big threats, eh.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jun 5, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> And, it seems like Strider/Aragorn being 70-80 years old during LOTR was omitted in order to allow the audience to more easily relate to his character.


Pretty sure they mention his age in the extended scenes, but Aragorn descended from some special race of man, so he had a much longer lifespan, hence him looking around forty.


> And, the width and depth of Tolkien's world was more or less dumbed down and "idiot proofed" in order to make it accessible to a larger demographic.


That, or it was streamlined so as to not make the movies a impenetrable mess of superfluous knowledge. Tolkien was trying to make a mythology, Peter Jackson was trying to tell one of the stories from that mythology.


Taleran said:


> Does that mean it Hellboy BPRD time sooner
> 
> YES PLEASE!


Both Hellboy movies were bombs, so any studio deciding to greenlight it is kind of doubtful.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2010)

Vonocourt said:


> That, or it was streamlined so as to not make the movies a impenetrable mess of superfluous knowledge. Tolkien was trying to make a mythology, Peter Jackson was trying to tell one of the stories from that mythology.




Streamlined?  (psst, certain you don't mean "dumbed down" streamlined)  

k


----------



## Vonocourt (Jun 5, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Streamlined?
> 
> Did you wince during the first Arwen x Aragorn scene?
> 
> Well, I did...



So they took out a character you never saw again, and replaced it with a character that helps add some depth to Aragorn's tale. *Truly turrible*.

EDIT:
Well, seems like you changed your post and just made it a insult. Good job. Well that last bit was kinda rude.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jun 5, 2010)

Vonocourt said:


> So they took out a character you never saw again, and replaced it with a character that helps add some depth to Aragorn's tale. *Truly turrible*.
> 
> EDIT:
> Well, seems like you changed your post and just made it a insult. Good job. Well that last bit was kinda rude.




Irony being what it is, I edited to make it _less_ insulting.

Somehow, its difficult for me to imagine that cheesy one-liners like...  "do you remember the first time we met" with them both standing about 10 feet away from one another as if they were afraid they might get each other AIDs would do much to add to the "depth" of Aragorn's character.

Maybe, I'm being an asshole, but I happen to think of Peter Jackson's approach to that scene being pretty horrible.

I like some of the changes -- the part at the end where everyone bows down before the hobbits, was great.  

But...  a lot of the pertinent stuff gets lost in translation or dumbed down.  Aragorn is basically a dude who is part elven and part mortal.  His natural lifespan is 200-300 years.  

At the time of the trilogy he's 70-90 years old.  He's seen 1 to 3 lifetimes of war, politics, etc.  He's basically someone who spent a long, long, time sharpening his skills, that's an integral part of what makes him a badass.

Peter Jackson doesn't get it.  Casts Aragorn as some young, wet behind the balls, dude.  Likewise with a number of the characters and their scenes.  A good deal of the substance is abandoned in favor of empty flair and pointless dramatics.  

Its moreso cinematography driven, as opposed to driven by the characters or story.  That's not how its supposed to be.  Maybe that's the way the modern film making industry deems it being necessary, in terms of being concerned with profits, etc.  That sucks.


----------



## Vonocourt (Jun 5, 2010)

1mmortal 1tachi said:


> Somehow, its difficult for me to imagine that cheesy one-liners like...  "do you remember the first time we met" with them both standing about 10 feet away from one another as if they were afraid they might get each other AIDs would do much to add to the "depth" of Aragorn's character.Maybe, I'm being an asshole, but I happen to think of Peter Jackson's approach to that scene being pretty horrible.


ahh, I thought you were talking about when they were being chased with dark riders and that one random elf helped bring Frodo to rivendell. But naw, didn't find that scene that bad. And what I meant about adding depth was with the whole he'll die off eventually and everything he's done will fade away while she continues on. 


> But...  a lot of the pertinent stuff gets lost in translation or dumbed down.  Aragorn is basically a dude who is part elven and part mortal.  His natural lifespan is 200-300 years.
> 
> At the time of the trilogy he's 70-90 years old.  He's seen 1 to 3 lifetimes of war, politics, etc.  He's basically someone who spent a long, long, time sharpening his skills, that's an integral part of what makes him a badass.
> 
> Peter Jackson doesn't get it.  Casts Aragorn as some young, wet behind the balls, dude.  Likewise with a number of the characters and their scenes.  A good deal of the substance is abandoned in favor of empty flair and pointless dramatics.


Umm, maybe I'm just misremembering...but none of that is actually touched upon in the the actual books. Instead relegated to the appendixes. And Aragorn did not look like some young lad fresh off the farm, he looked weather and tired in the film. As a said earlier, I'm well aware he is in his eighties during the trilogy, but because of his blood is given a much younger appearance. I think I remember some people in the book being stunned when he tells them his age, or maybe I'm just misremembering again.


> Its moreso cinematography driven, as opposed to driven by the characters or story.  That's not how its supposed to be.  Maybe that's the way the modern film making industry deems it being necessary, in terms of being concerned with profits, etc.  That sucks.


What?... I mean what? I'm sorry, I can't understand where you're coming from at all. Tolkien would spend near a whole page describing a field in the Fellowship, yet in Return of the King he was rushing to tell the story as fast as possible.


----------



## Bart (Jun 12, 2010)

*Ian McKellen Says "The Hobbit" is Moving Forward*


> Even though director Guillermo del Toro has dropped out from helming "The Hobbit" prequels, actor Ian McKellen has revealed via his Twitter account that things are still moving forward.
> 
> He said: _"'Hobbit' sets are ready, script ready and movie is casting this month. Fans are not to worry. The films will get made. I suspect we'll start shooting at end of this year."_
> 
> ...


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Jun 16, 2010)

*Photos from The Hobbit Set Construction*



			
				Coming Soon said:
			
		

> Images from set contruction on The Hobbit have appeared online, courtesy of the German fansite Herr-der-Ringe-Film.de.
> 
> The site, written in German, reports that these images were taken last month in New Zealand. While they do precede the recent departure of Guillermo del Toro as director, they also provide a fairly good look at exactly how much work has already been done on the films.



Click on the pics to enlarge.


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Jun 25, 2010)

*Peter Jackson in negotiations for 'The Hobbit'*



> Almost one month after Guillermo del Toro dropped out of directing "The Hobbit," "Lord of the Rings" director Peter Jackson is in talks to helm the two films in the franchise. While we wait for the studios involved or Jackson's manager to confirm, there are lots of questions that remain before "The Hobbit" can actually begin production, let alone reach the big screen.
> 
> Read More:


----------



## delaford321 (Jun 27, 2010)

I do hope the Hobbit is put to film, I think it will point more people to the books than even are interested now. i am concerned though that once again the greedy studios will put their bottom line before the fans. No wonder Tolkiens family resisted the LoTR so fervently, I cannot imagine this bickering makes them any happier


----------



## Vanity (Jun 28, 2010)

Yasha said:


> He's shed a lot of pounds recently.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wait that's Peter Jackson? Wow.

Also, it's going to be in 2 parts now?


----------



## Bleach (Jun 28, 2010)

I can't wait for this to come out! The book was really good so i hope this does it justice 

@KY

It's probably best that its in two parts really because there is a lot of stuff that goes on. I would rather they do two parts than leave stuff out


----------



## Violent-nin (Jun 28, 2010)

I`m perfectly fine if Jackson ends up directing the two films, I wanted him to direct The Hobbit in the first place.


----------



## Vanity (Jun 28, 2010)

Bleach said:


> @KY
> 
> It's probably best that its in two parts really because there is a lot of stuff that goes on. I would rather they do two parts than leave stuff out



Yeah, I don't have a problem with it at all....I'm glad that it will be 2 films.

I just didn't know that was planned until now.


----------



## Yasha (Jun 28, 2010)

Do they have any candidates for the role of Bilbo Baggins yet? Ian Holm had done a splendid job in LotR, but he's probably too old for the young Bilbo role. Maybe a bit of make-up and computer technology could fix the problem. I'd love to see him play the role again.


----------



## Roy (Jun 29, 2010)

^That could be possible. Hobbit seems like a more grueling physical task though. Not sure if he can do it.


----------



## Roy (Jul 3, 2010)

I wouldn't be surprised if they decide to go with a young Bilbo instead of the 50-year-old that he is in the book.


----------



## Bart (Jul 3, 2010)

I think that's the likely option, Roy.

Remember that scene in the flashback of the Fellowship where we seen Bilbo in the Misty Mountains? I'm pretty certain when an ultimate edition of the LOTR trilogy is released that Holm in that scene will be replaced.

Well Frodo was around 50 in the Fellowship, so perhaps they differed from the book by the whole Hobbit aging process?


----------



## Emperor Joker (Jul 3, 2010)

Bart said:


> I think that's the likely option, Roy.
> 
> Remember that scene in the flashback of the Fellowship where we seen Bilbo in the Misty Mountains? I'm pretty certain when an ultimate edition of the LOTR trilogy is released that Holm in that scene will be replaced.
> 
> Well Frodo was around 50 in the Fellowship, so perhaps they differed from the book by the whole Hobbit aging process?



lol I forgot that Frodo waiting almost three decades before starting off in the book.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Jul 3, 2010)

hobbits are gay as fuck; and how come there was only one dwarf in LotR? weren't they supposed to have a kingdom or something?

goddamned world is about to end and they send ONE guy...and his axe :33


----------



## Roy (Jul 3, 2010)

Gimli is fucking god-tier. :ho


----------



## Bart (Jul 3, 2010)

Emperor Joker said:


> lol I forgot that Frodo waiting almost three decades before starting off in the book.



Yeah 

Well that could've happened in the film, but then again it wasn't heavily suggested.


----------



## Roy (Jul 3, 2010)

Yeah. I'm thinking they'll go with a young Bilbo now. Using an old dude isn't really attracting for the majority of the audience.


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Aug 29, 2010)

*The 7th Doctor Who to play Radagast the Brown?*

*Sylvester McCoy in Talks for The Hobbit*



> Big news coming from the Dunoon Observer/Argyllshire Standard today. Sylvester McCoy confirms he is in contention with another actor for one of two Wizard parts in the upcoming ?Hobbit? films. We know Ian McKellen will like to return as Gandalf, and we?ve heard some rumblings of Radagast the Brown having a bigger role, so if you put two and two together ? is Sylvester McCoy up for Radagast the Brown?
> 
> ?I am being cast in The Hobbit,? he said. ?We?re currently in negotiations ? there are two of us under consideration. It?s not the Bilbo role, but could be bigger.?
> 
> Source:


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Aug 30, 2010)

Peter Jackson fucked up the trilogy so he's bound to fuck this up, too.


Don't get me wrong; they're a great stand-alone movie trilogy.  But anyone who claims that they are even remotely close to Tolkien's books should get bashed over the head with a copy of The Silmarillion.


----------



## Yasha (Aug 31, 2010)

RAGING BONER said:


> hobbits are gay as fuck; and how come there was only one dwarf in LotR? weren't they supposed to have a kingdom or something?
> 
> goddamned world is about to end and they send ONE guy...and his axe :33



A few dwarf lords attended the council in Rivendell actually. But yeah, they're mostly minding their own business in the mountains and didn't give a damn about what happened in the outside world.





Gaawa-chan said:


> Peter Jackson fucked up the trilogy so he's bound to fuck this up, too.
> 
> 
> Don't get me wrong; they're a great stand-alone movie trilogy.  But anyone who claims that they are even remotely close to Tolkien's books should get bashed over the head with a copy of The Silmarillion.



Fucked up? Try to name 5 movies that are more epic than LotR.


----------



## Bleach (Aug 31, 2010)

I have such high hopes for this damn movie.

It better not let me down and better be just as good or better than LOTR if that is even possible.

Yes, Jackson did not exactly do the movies the way the book was but I'm actually fine with that cause the movies were so fucking epic.


----------



## Bart (Sep 9, 2010)

*Martin Freeman could still play Bilbo Baggins*


> Yesterday, the British newspaper The Sun ran a story saying that Martin Freeman (a.k.a. Tim from the original U.K. Office) had to decline an offer (and seven-figure payday) to play Bilbo Baggins in Peter Jackson?s Hobbit movies due to a scheduling conflict: The actor was already committed to shoot the BBC series Sherlock, in which he plays Dr. Watson. That?s all true, but according to sources close to the Hobbit production, it?s not over yet. New Line and MGM, the studios backing the Hobbit films, have since come back to Freeman with a proposed schedule that would allow him to shoot both projects. All parties are currently negotiating a deal.
> 
> Good news, right? What do you think? Is Freeman the right guy to play the titular hobbit in Jackson?s next epic trip to Middle Earth? How will Freeman?s Bilbo compare to Ian Holm?s? Whose feet will be hairier?
> 
> Source: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang



Freeman is the most perfect choice for Bilbo, hands down!

I even remember after Return of the King, that many fans actually considered him for the role of Bilbo if there were ever to be an adaption of the Hobbit made.


----------



## Roy (Sep 9, 2010)

I'm not familiar with his work, but he seems like a good choice.


----------



## Yasha (Sep 27, 2010)

I don't really understand what the whole Aussie vs NZ thing was all about, but damn the Union I say.  The movie wouldn't look half as impressive if it were to be filmed in Europe instead of New Zealand.


----------



## Roy (Sep 28, 2010)

New Zealand is where Middle-Earth is. You can't change that, dammit.


----------



## Vonocourt (Sep 28, 2010)

Martin Freeman as Bilbo<3


----------



## Roy (Sep 29, 2010)

For a split second I thought you said Morgan Freeman.


----------



## Orthio (Sep 29, 2010)

Wow, well freeman definitely looks the part but I can't help thinking that he'd do that shocked time look and ruin the atmosphere.
*Spoiler*: _Like this_ 








Oh bart, don't quote the sun too much, it's a complete joke of a paper, seriously


----------



## Bart (Oct 2, 2010)

*'The Hobbit' finally close to getting greenlight!*​


> The LA Times is reporting news we’ve all been waiting to hear: "The Hobbit" is finally close, maybe just days away, from getting a greenlight!
> 
> _"The studios have nearly finalized a deal with director, producer and co-writer Peter Jackson to make the two movies and have resolved most other key issues that have long held up the project, including those related to underlying rights from the estate of author J.R.R. Tolkien. The one remaining hurdle is getting an official go-ahead from MGM, which is set to co-finance the movies because under a long-standing agreement it owns half the rights and controls international distribution."_
> 
> ...



Looks like Jackson is going to direct!

Yes! Yes! Yes!


----------



## Roy (Oct 2, 2010)

I was just about to post this, Bart. 



> You would think that a movie like The Hobbit would not have to wait this long in the queue for a greenlight, but that's how Hollywood rolls.
> 
> Now, The Los Angeles Times reports that our return to the Shire is getting closer to officially being a "Go" project.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bart (Oct 2, 2010)

Even better


----------



## Roy (Oct 13, 2010)

> Martin Freeman has been discussing his continued interest in playing Bilbo Baggins in The Hobbit after a scheduling conflict initially ruled him out of the film.
> 
> "I did have to say no to it for the second series of Sherlock" he told Empire. "But if something could be worked out, that would be great."
> 
> ...





Freeman talks about the Bilbo role


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Oct 16, 2010)

*Press Release from New Line/Warner Bros.: OSCAR WINNER PETER JACKSON TO DIRECT ?THE HOBBIT? IN TWO INSTALLMENTS*



> The two films based on "The Hobbit" are now greenlit and will begin principal photography in February 2011, under the direction of Peter Jackson, it was jointly announced today by Toby Emmerich, President and Chief Operating Officer, New Line Cinema, Alan Horn, President and Chief Operating Officer, Warner Bros. and Steve Cooper, co-Chief Executive Officer of Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Inc.
> 
> "Exploring Tolkien's Middle-earth goes way beyond a normal film-making experience" Jackson says, "It's an all-immersive journey into a very special place of imagination, beauty and drama. We're looking forward to re-entering this wondrous world with Gandalf and Bilbo - and our friends at New Line Cinema, Warner Brothers and MGM".
> 
> ...


----------



## Roy (Oct 16, 2010)

FFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU YYYEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH


----------



## Bart (Oct 16, 2010)

OMG yes! :3

Now I really hope Martin Freeman becomes Bilbo lol; I'm still wondering who's going to play Beorn, as I've always thought he has a Russell Crowe feel about him tbh.


----------



## Didi (Oct 16, 2010)

Fuck yeah, I wanna see this.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Oct 16, 2010)

Power Pack United its time for a Return to Middle Earth... MGM can crawl in a corner & Die for screwing with my films Bastards caused everyone stress because of shoddy decision making.


----------



## John Carter of Mars (Oct 17, 2010)

I'm really excited for this.
A friend told me he enjoy LOTR trilogy a lot as well as I and we share the same likeness towards the whole series.
But among all the LOTR franchise, The hobbit got me engaged obviously. It's funny when I first read it, I visualized and imagined all the characters / setting - i got a kick out of that while reading the book. But now that the movie is being made it's going to totally emerge out of a different mind and ideas. Anyways... I know I won't be disappointing.


----------



## Bart (Oct 17, 2010)

*Martin Freeman Set For The Hobbit*



> First of all, the casting for The Hobbit is well underway, so all of this could change the next day.
> 
> So, yesterday it was announced that The Hobbit will begin production in February, 2011 for a 2012 release date. Peter Jackson is confirmed as a director and now here are couple of casting news.
> 
> ...



P.S. Deadline is a very very reliable source :3

Tennant and Fassbender getting a role is just incredble, but not to sure of Nesbitt to be quite honest; but still he's a pretty good actor from some of the shows I've seen on the _BBC_.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Oct 17, 2010)

Christopher Walken as Smaug. You know you want that.


----------



## Bart (Oct 18, 2010)

Hatif, let's hope that Smaug is not sitting on any watches then


----------



## Bart (Oct 22, 2010)

Aidan Turner: Kili 
Rob Kazinsky: Fili 
Graham McTavish: Dwalin 
John Callen: Oin 
Stephen Hunter: Bombur 
Mark Hadlow: Dori 
Peter Hambleton: Gloin

P.S. I'm glad Kazinsky got a role!


----------



## Baks (Oct 28, 2010)

Have these roles been confirmed?

Serioulsy the only interesting dwarves with some real personality besides Thorin of course are Bombur, Gloin and Balin from the book.

All the other dwarves seem pretty boring imo. XP


----------



## Bart (Oct 28, 2010)

Yes 

Also Radagast's pretty much been confirmed to be played by Sylvester McCoy who wasone of the past Doctor's on Doctor Who :3

I agree about those dwarfs, but I still think Kili and Fili will shine, due to them being the youngest and the fact we need to know them better than most of the roster of Dwarfs included (for reasons you know of).


----------



## Silvermateus (Oct 28, 2010)

my friends husband has moved to NZ to work in the graphics department for the Hobbit, lots of good news and happy shit coming from her side. Its good to see the film finally starting to take shape.


----------



## Bart (Nov 2, 2010)

James Nesbitt has been confirmed as Bofur and Adam Brown as Ori :3

All that's left is Balin, Nori, and Bifur.


----------



## Vanity (Nov 2, 2010)

I'm glad that more actors are being confirmed. It's been a while since I read The Hobbit so I can't even remember all of the characters now.

I wonder how long until we start seeing this in the theaters. Probably about 3 more years.


----------



## Time Expired (Nov 7, 2010)

MGM filed for bankruptcy.  Despite the fact that they're ponying up 40M it leaves quite a huge shortfall for the films budget.  

*digs through couch for change* 

I'm sure they can find good lenders, the films should be real cash cows.


----------



## Bart (Dec 8, 2010)

*Recent Confirmations*
Sir Ian McKellen ... Gandalf the Grey
Cate Blanchett ... Galadriel 
Sylvester McCoy ... Radagast the Brown
Mikael Persbrandt ... Beorn
Ken Stott ... Balin 
Jed Brophy ... Nori
William Kircher ... Bifur 
Ryan Gage ... Drogo Baggins 

P.S. All the Dwarfs have been cast :WOW


----------



## Roy (Dec 8, 2010)

Good, good. You got any links for that? :3


----------



## Bart (Dec 8, 2010)

Yeah sure :3


----------



## Roy (Dec 8, 2010)

What do you think of Blanchett being in the film? =o


----------



## Bart (Dec 8, 2010)

I think it's brilliant :3

Fingers crossed that she'll narrate it as she did with the _Fellowship_. But her being in the _Hobbit_ is a bit odd, as she's not in the book exactly; possibly meaning they'll involve quite a bit of _Silmarillion_ elements.


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Feb 10, 2011)

*A Hobbit and Thirteen Dwarves!*


----------



## Felix (Feb 11, 2011)

Where is the dwarf part of them?


----------



## Bart (Mar 7, 2011)

> *Peter Jackson Plans To Make Dwarves Sexy In The Hobbit*
> 
> When the primary cast for The Hobbit was announced last week, like a lot of people I was confused and befuddled. Many of the actors hired to play the film’s most pivotal roles were relative unknowns or even stranger, voice actors. Martin Freeman as Bilbo makes sense, people have been clamoring for exactly that choice since the beginning, but the group brought on to play his dwarf companions are a strange bunch, to say the least. Not only are they basically unknown and inexperienced names, they’re also unexpectedly… well… hunky.
> 
> ...



*Miscellaneous:*

The unconfirmed titles: _The Hobbit: There and Back Again_ and _The Hobbit: An/The Unexpected Journey_.

Elijah Wood is confirmed as to return as _Frodo_, in the framing sequences, suggestively after the events of _Return of the King_.

David Tennent is rumoured for _Thranduil_, the father of Legolas.

Orlando Bloom is very likely to reprise his role as _Legolas_.

Saoirse Ronan has been, apparently, confirmed. Rumour has it she'll play _Itaril_, who is not one of Tolkien's creations mind you, it's one of Jackson's.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 7, 2011)

What are the chances that this movie will contain scenes from Aragorn's feats in Rohan and Gondor, along with the banishing of Sauron from Mirkwood?


----------



## Bart (Mar 9, 2011)

Well Sauron being banished from _Mirkwood_ by the White Council is a must, given the fact that Galadriel, Saruman and Radagast are confirmed.

Aragorn's feats in _Rohan_ and _Gondor_ don't really add anything to the story of _The Hobbit_ tbh, so I doubt it'll contain such things :WOW


----------



## Emperor Joker (Mar 9, 2011)

Adagio said:


> What are the chances that this movie will contain scenes from Aragorn's feats in Rohan and Gondor, along with the banishing of Sauron from Mirkwood?



Supposedly Sauron being banished from Mirkwood is going take up a chunk of the second movie from some of the rumors i've heard.


----------



## Adagio (Mar 9, 2011)

I see. Well it would have been nice seeing Aragorn's younger (somewhat) days, because it would give insight to the latter days of the decline in Rohan and Gondor, along with the start of his relationship with Gandalf. :\


----------



## emROARS (Mar 9, 2011)

freeman and tennant



I need to reread the book for this.


----------



## Bart (Apr 7, 2011)

*First Images of Bilbo Baggins*
Bilbo Baggins #1
Bilbo Baggins #2

*Other Images*
William Kircher - Bifur
Andy Serkis as Gollum (motion capture suit)
Adam Brown - Ori
James Nesbitt - Bofur

*Updates:*

Orlando Bloom has confirmed his return as Legolas.

Andy Serkis (Gollum) will serve as Second Unit Director on The Hobbit.

Bret McKenzie who played "Figwit" will play Lindir in The Hobbit.


----------



## emROARS (Apr 7, 2011)

lol did they like do a stalker thing and photograph them from behind bushes?


----------



## SageMaster (Apr 14, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfesknLk5uI[/YOUTUBE]

SO EXCITED FOR THIS MOVIE


----------



## gumby2ms (Apr 14, 2011)

your link aint working sage. but also of note he is filming in 48 fps and 3D so be prepared for the smoothest 3D movie yet.(every movie you've seen is probably 24 fps) Also this is the hobbit imo the best tolkin book because the pace is greater then the trilogy.


----------



## Jena (Apr 15, 2011)

Sorry if it's been mentioned already, but do you know who is playing Bilbo?


----------



## Gnome (Apr 15, 2011)

Cast:


----------



## Bart (Apr 15, 2011)

SageMaster said:


> SO EXCITED FOR THIS MOVIE



Yeah 



gumby2ms said:


> your link aint working sage. but also of note he is filming in 48 fps and 3D so be prepared for the smoothest 3D movie yet.(every movie you've seen is probably 24 fps) Also this is the hobbit imo the best tolkin book because the pace is greater then the trilogy.



I still don't understand the whole 48 fps thing; care to explain?

Greater pace? Coupled with the indirect references of _Unfinished Tales_ and _The Silmarillion_ that are included in the the Lord of the Rings preface and appendices quite possibly.



Jena said:


> Sorry if it's been mentioned already, but do you know who is playing Bilbo?



What Gnome on Fire posted.

But to be a tad bit clearer - Martin Freeman's playing Bilbo :3

I'll update the OP rather soon :WOW


----------



## Hana (Apr 15, 2011)

Oh! I just saw that Youtube video about The Hobbit. I squeed so hard when all of them were sitting in Bilbo's kitchen. I'm so excited!


----------



## KittieSocks (Apr 15, 2011)

Looking forward to seeing this.


----------



## The Boss (Apr 15, 2011)

Im pretty fucking excited. Watching that youtube video reminds me of my high school days. Dat fucking music. Feels so old man.


----------



## Bleach (Apr 15, 2011)

So excited for this!@!@! I can't wait. I'm hoping its everything I want it to be but much more just like the LOTR trilogy.

@The video

Lol @ Ian McKellen. I'm so glad he's still in


----------



## Jena (Apr 15, 2011)

Gnome on Fire said:


> Cast:



Thanks! 

Hey-it's Tim from the Office!


----------



## gumby2ms (Apr 16, 2011)

Bart said:


> Yeah
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't understand the whole 48 fps thing; care to explain?



twice the frames per second = twice as many images in a scene. meaning in 3d-renders smoother in you mind meaning it will be more surreal and lifelike then the 3D done then say resident evil-3D.


----------



## Yasha (Apr 16, 2011)

The video was removed from youtube. You can watch it on .


When I heard the familiar music, I almost teared.


----------



## Kiryuu (Apr 16, 2011)

looks promising.


----------



## Nightblade (Apr 18, 2011)

looking awesome. glad this is happening. and Sir Ian Mckellen is back as Gandalf the Gray. glorious.
Martin Freeman also fits the role of a young Bilbo, he kinda looks like a Hobbit.


----------



## Bart (Apr 25, 2011)

Some news 

Sadly Robert Kazinsky, who was to play _Fili_, has left The Hobbit apparently due to health reasons according to his Twitter page, so definitely most unfortunate; and Peter Jackson posted a piece on Kazinsky's depature.

Also Peter Jackson confirmed that the voice at the end of the Hobbit production video is that of Martin Freeman _(which was most unexpected)_; and Ian Holm has been confirmed as _Old Bilbo_ :WOW


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (May 30, 2011)

*Peter Jackson answers the first of 20 fan questions about The Hobbit*




> *OFFICIAL QUESTION #1*
> 
> VALERIA KEMENTARI asked, "Are we going to see the White Council attacking Dol Guldor?"
> 
> ...



Get hyped!


----------



## Kazekage Gaara (May 30, 2011)

I adore Peter Jackson and the trilogy of the LOTR, Hobbit is gonna be the best! PETER FOR THE PRESIDENT!


----------



## Felix (May 30, 2011)

I cried watching the Production movie
Seriously, the Lord of the Rings score brings me so many emotions
I can't believe it was almost a decade ago...


----------



## Bleach (May 30, 2011)

Man Peter Jackson is going to make this one of the best movies of past years! Ughhh I sooo can't wait!


----------



## Bart (May 31, 2011)

I didn't post those details, as I didn't want to double post :3

*Updates*

The titles are, _The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey_ and _The Hobbit: There and Back Again_

Stephen Fry (YES! YES! YES) will play the Master of Lake-town.

Orlando Bloom has been officially confirmed his return as Legolas, it was made official.

Hugo Weaving is officially returning as Elrond.

Conan Stevens will be playing Azog.

Benedict Cumberbatch, from Sherlock, has been cast but his role is unconfirmed thus far.

The _White Council_ and _Dol Guldur_ have been confirmed.

*@Kazekage Gaara*
Yep :3

*@Felix*
Howard Shore's LOTR compositions are second to none as far as I'm concerned lol.
I really can't wait to hear the samples of _The Hobbit_.

*@Bleach*
Most definitely! It's been 9 years since we last saw Middle Earth, so I can't wait either!

P.S. I'm prepared to bet anything that _Cumberbatch_ will either play Bard or voice Smaug :WOW


----------



## Bart (Jun 23, 2011)

*Official Images of Bilbo and Gandalf*

*Bilbo and the Dwarves*


*Gandalf the Grey*


*Peter Jackson and Martin Freeman*


*Recent updates:*

Benedict Cumberbatch is voicing Smaug, as well as the "Necromancer".

Evangeline Lilly will be playing Tauriel, a Silvan Elf.

Luke Evans has been confirmed as Bard.

Barry Humphries is playing The Great Goblin.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 23, 2011)

Bart said:


> David Tenn_a_nt is rumoured for _Thranduil_, the father of Legolas.


*Want* 

That would raise the level of epic even further.


----------



## Bart (Jun 23, 2011)

Lee Pace was confirmed as _Thranduil_ ^


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Jul 8, 2011)

*Dori, Nori and Ori *


*Spoiler*: __ 



​


----------



## Bart (Jul 8, 2011)

*Nori, Ori and Dori* (_High-Res_) 


Warner Brothers' description of the brothers at hand:

_"*These three brothers, all sons of the same mother, could not be more different from each other. Dori, the oldest, spends much of his time watching out for Ori, the youngest; making sure he’s not caught a chill or got himself killed by Wargs or Goblins. No-body quite knows what Nori gets up to most of the time, except that it’s guaranteed to be dodgy and quite probably, illegal. Dori, Nori and Ori are intensely loyal to each other – and whilst they are perfectly happy fighting amongst themselves, woe-betide any anyone who means harm to one of these brothers.*"_

P.S. Thanks for the post, Yoshi :WOW


----------



## Federer (Jul 8, 2011)

Really looking forward to this movie. 

Hopefully it will be as good as the LOTR movies.


----------



## Bart (Jul 8, 2011)

*Oin and Gloin* 



Warner Brothers' description of the brothers at hand:

_"*Distant cousins of Thorin Oakenshield, these two doughty Northern Dwarves join the Company out of a sense of loyalty to their kin, and also because they have a substantial sum of money invested in the venture. Along with Bombur, Gloin is the only other married Dwarf in the Company (there being a shortage of female dwarves in general). His wife is an acclaimed beauty with a particularly fine beard. Gloin is the proud father of a young son, Gimli, who will go on to become part of the famous Fellowship of the Ring.*"_


----------



## Jena (Jul 8, 2011)

Bart said:


> David Tennent is rumoured for _Thranduil_, the father of Legolas.



Excuse me...


And Gandalf looks pimp in that promo image up there. But what else is new?


----------



## The Imp (Jul 8, 2011)

I'm looking forward to the soundtrack the most.


----------



## Felix (Jul 8, 2011)

FUCK YEAH
Gloin looks liked a even more badass Gimli


----------



## Bart (Jul 8, 2011)

My predictions on the future images released:

*Dwalin and Balin* 
_N/A _

*Bifur, Bofur and Bombur *
_N/A _

*Kili, Thorin and Fili *
_N/A_

Also, and most importantly:

*The Hobbit Production Video #2*
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oZSfT1ANgI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bleach (Jul 8, 2011)

Aww yea I've been waiting for this


----------



## Gomu Ningen (Jul 9, 2011)

I'm really liking the looks of the Dwarves so far.  I really want to see Thorin, Fili, Kili, Bombur, and Balin.  Hell, I wanna see them all, and I really want to see Beorn.


----------



## Time Expired (Jul 9, 2011)

Finally - an addition to the blog.  Sounds like he's got so much on his plate, but handling it very well.  



Part I December of 2012


----------



## Felix (Jul 9, 2011)

One day I'll see the video blog videos without crying at the first souding of the OST


----------



## Adagio (Jul 9, 2011)

All of their outfits look amazing 
Kinda goes to show that Gimli (and the Fellowship in general) were raggedy because of the nature of their quest.


----------



## BVB (Jul 9, 2011)

the music is so nostalgic. 

I want to watch LotR right now. :33

I can't wait for the Hobbit.


----------



## Bart (Jul 9, 2011)

Bleach said:


> Aww yea I've been waiting for this



The Hobbit's been waiting for you :3



Gomu Ningen said:


> I'm really liking the looks of the Dwarves so far.  I really want to see Thorin, Fili, Kili, Bombur, and Balin.  Hell, I wanna see them all, and I really want to see Beorn.



Well Beorn won't be included, if it's only Dwarfs :3

Unless the images after Thorin, Kili and Fili are of others non-dwarfish. I'm almost 100% sure that Fili, Thorin and Kili will be included in an image.



Soul Assassin said:


> Finally - an addition to the blog.  Sounds like he's got so much on his plate, but handling it very well.
> 
> Part I December of 2012



Yeah; brilliant snipppets of Bilbo in the Misty Mountains with Gollum and the prior meeting with Elrond.



Felix said:


> One day I'll see the video blog videos without crying at the first souding of the OST



*Gandalf:* _"I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil."_



Adagio said:


> All of their outfits look amazing
> Kinda goes to show that Gimli (and the Fellowship in general) were raggedy because of the nature of their quest.



A really good point right there, Adagio. Well yes, and most importantly it was near the end of the Third Age entering into the Fourth one, and the whole issue of the possibility that the Ring remained, which undoubtedy was in some minds.



Chicharito said:


> the music is so nostalgic.
> 
> I want to watch LotR right now. :33
> 
> I can't wait for the Hobbit.



I can't wait for Howard Shore's score :WOW


----------



## Distance (Jul 9, 2011)

I can't wait! My body is just so ready!


----------



## Bart (Jul 10, 2011)

Here's a High-Res version of the Oin and Gloin image earlier 

*Oin and Gloin * _(High-Res)_


----------



## Jon Snow (Jul 10, 2011)

Is that Gerard Depardiu?

and Yoren from Game of Thrones?


----------



## Bart (Jul 10, 2011)

Nope 

It's John Callen and Peter Hambleton :WOW


----------



## Bart (Jul 12, 2011)

*Fili and Kili* 



Warner Brothers' description of the brothers at hand:

_"*Two of the youngest dwarves, Fili and Kili have been born into the royal line of Durin and raised under the stern guardianship of their uncle, Thorin Oakensheild. Neither has ever travelled far, nor ever seen the fabled Dwarf City of Erebor. For both, the journey to the Lonely Mountain represents adventure and excitement. Skilled fighters, both brothers set off on their adventure armed with the invincible courage of youth, neither being able to imagine the fate which lies before them.*"_


----------



## Furious George (Jul 12, 2011)

This looks like its going to be REALLY good. 

My only concern is that Peter Jackson doesn't over-produce here. Lord of the Ring was a vast, epic tale so it was made for large production value, but The Hobbit by comparison is much smaller... more whimsical and "enchant-ish" then epic. The two stories, while connected, had an entirely different tone. Jackson has to keep this in mind or he'll just end up making "Lord of The Rings 0".


----------



## Gnome (Jul 12, 2011)

Furious George said:


> This looks like its going to be REALLY good.
> 
> My only concern is that Peter Jackson doesn't over-produce here. Lord of the Ring was a vast, epic tale so it was made for large production value, but The Hobbit by comparison is much smaller... more whimsical and "enchant-ish" then epic. The two stories, while connected, had an entirely different tone. Jackson has to keep this in mind or he'll just end up making "Lord of The Rings 0".



I agree. It's much more of an adventure rather than a war.


----------



## Ennoea (Jul 12, 2011)

I trust him, I think he knows what he's doing.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jul 13, 2011)

Wonder if he'll manage to make it as awesome as the books were.

So eager to watch this :WOW


----------



## BVB (Jul 13, 2011)

*BOFUR, BOMBUR & BIFUR *



the dwarfes look awesome..

I can't wait to see a picture of them alltogether


----------



## Bart (Jul 14, 2011)

*Bombur, Bofur and Bifur * _(High-Res)_ 



Warner Brothers' description of the brothers and cousin at hand:

_"*While most of the Company of Thorin Oakensheild is related to the royal and noble line of Durin, Bofur, his brother Bombur and their cousin Bifur most definitely are ? not. Born and bred in the West, descendants of coal miners and iron workers, they have joined the Quest for the Lonely Mountain partly to seek their fortune and partly because they were told the beer was free.*"_

P.S. Thanks, Chicharito :WOW


----------



## Bart (Jul 15, 2011)

*Balin and Dwalin* 



Warner Brothers' description of the brothers at hand:

_"*Dwarf Lords in their own right, Balin and Dwalin are close relatives of Thorin. Beyond this, these brothers are two of his most loyal and trusted friends. An old warrior, Balin has lived through hard times and fought many battles, yet he harbors doubts about the wisdom of the Quest to retake the Lonely Mountain. Dwalin has no such forebodings – his belief in Thorin’s leadership is unshakeable. A powerful and bruising fighter, with a natural tendency to distrust anyone who is not a Dwarf, particularly anyone who might be an Elf, Dwalin is not someone to cross lightly.*"_

P.S. Thorin should be released rather soon, perhaps in 24 hours or so :WOW


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Jul 15, 2011)

Balin's Tomb.


----------



## Stroev (Jul 16, 2011)

I was expecting them to be less... fitted for adventure, for some reason.


----------



## Bart (Jul 16, 2011)

Dragonus Nesha said:


> Balin's Tomb.



 

Thorin's image should be released rather soon, possibly in the next 24 hours or so; although we've already seen what he'll look like.


----------



## Felix (Jul 16, 2011)

Bart said:


> *Fili and Kili*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



For some reason I think they failed with these two
They clearly do not look like dwarves, the proportions are all messed up on Kili


----------



## -Dargor- (Jul 16, 2011)

You're right, he looks way to badass to be a dwarf


----------



## Bleach (Jul 16, 2011)

They don't look.... stubby? enough as Gimli did. Gimli looked like a true dwarf. Kili's body is a bit too long and skinny to be a dwarf IMHO but they will probably look different when all the effects and whatnot are placed


----------



## BVB (Jul 17, 2011)

Bart said:


> *Balin and Dwalin*



I expected Balin to look more awesome.. 

He is the one who conquered MORIA!! 



Bleach said:


> They don't look.... stubby? enough as Gimli did. Gimli looked like a true dwarf. Kili's body is a bit too long and skinny to be a dwarf IMHO but they will probably look different when all the effects and whatnot are placed



Well they are young.. maybe they'll get pudgier with age.


----------



## Bart (Jul 17, 2011)

Felix said:


> For some reason I think they failed with these two
> They clearly do not look like dwarves, the proportions are all messed up on Kili



But Felix, they're the youngest Dwarfs, not to mention that, suggestively speaking, Dwarves change in appearance drastically when they age. Fili being 82 and Kili 77 ages of age.

Also what I said to Bleach below this post :WOW



-Dargor- said:


> You're right, he looks way to badass to be a dwarf



Dwarves are badass :WOW



Bleach said:


> They don't look.... stubby? enough as Gimli did. Gimli looked like a true dwarf. Kili's body is a bit too long and skinny to be a dwarf IMHO but they will probably look different when all the effects and whatnot are placed



Dwarves change when they age; _Aul?_, when creating the Dwarves, had based them on both Elves and Men, so it's not such of a surprise that they appear as such, and as I said to Felix, they are very young, but young enough to go on the quest, unlike Gimli that is.



Chicharito said:


> I expected Balin to look more awesome..
> 
> He is the one who conquered MORIA!!



Well he sort of looks awesome :WOW


----------



## BVB (Jul 17, 2011)

dat manly dwarf and dat sword.


----------



## Felix (Jul 17, 2011)

:datthorin


----------



## Bart (Jul 18, 2011)

*Thorin Oakenshield* 



Warner Brothers' description of Thorin:

_"*As a young Dwarf prince, Thorin witnessed the destruction and terror wrought when a great fire-breathing Dragon attacked the Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor. After slaughtering many of Thorin?s kin, the great serpent, Smaug, entered The Lonely Mountain and took possession of its vast store of gold and jewels. No-one came to the aid of the surviving Dwarves, and thus, a once proud and noble race was forced into exile. Through long years of hardship, Thorin grew to be a strong and fearless fighter and revered leader. In his heart a fierce desire grew; a desire to reclaim his homeland and destroy the beast that had brought such misery upon his people. So when fate offers him an unusual ally, he seizes the chance for revenge.*"_

P.S. Thanks, Chicharito. Very glad that they kept Orcrist similar to Gandalf's Glamdrin, as they are twins to a large extent :WOW


----------



## C_Akutabi (Jul 21, 2011)

In case that link doesn't work


----------



## BVB (Jul 21, 2011)

ALL THE DWARFES ALLTOGETHER.  



I'm so pumped up for this movie. :33

the third video blog post by PJ:


EDIT: bigger picture.


from left to right:

Nori, Fili, Dori, Bofur, Gloin, Dwalin, Thorin, Balin, Oin, Bombur, Bifur, Ori, Kili


----------



## Bart (Nov 2, 2011)

*Images of Frodo*


*Spoiler*: __ 








P.S. Also it's sort of been revealed when exactly, timeline-wise, Frodo hears of Bilbo's tale :WOW


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 4, 2011)

I thought they were gonna make the movie so it's actually Frodo telling the tale on the eve of Bilbo's party no? I hope they have Sam/Pippin/Merry make a cameo as well


----------



## Bart (Nov 4, 2011)

*The Hobbit -Behind The Scenes #4*

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHF536TJ0iE[/YOUTUBE]



-Dargor- said:


> I thought they were gonna make the movie so it's actually Frodo telling the tale on the eve of Bilbo's party no? I hope they have Sam/Pippin/Merry make a cameo as well



*Potential Spoiler*

*Spoiler*: __ 



It appears that Bilbo tells the story to Frodo shortly before we see first Frodo laying on the grass at the beginning of the _Fellowship of the Ring_; my guess is that it occurs just a couple of days before Gandalf's arrival :WOW


----------



## Bleach (Nov 4, 2011)

Wait... it's being shot in 3D.....?


----------



## -Dargor- (Nov 5, 2011)

3 fucking D


----------



## Suigetsu (Nov 5, 2011)

I hope they make smaug like that Jon Howe cover. It is magnanimous.
There is something that bothered me of that mirkwood forest look, in the book I imagined it would be like one of those dark forests of germany. Here it looks too.... fantasy.

Guess Ill have to wait and see the movie, find out how it all turned out.


----------



## In Brightest Day! (Nov 6, 2011)

My expectations for this film are ridiculously high. 3D or not.


----------



## Bart (Dec 2, 2011)

The trailer is going to be released with _Tintin_ in December :WOW


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 12, 2011)

I don't know about you guys, but I found it quite interesting that they didn't make the dwarf look 'generic'. They went a bit overboard with some but still, they all have unqiue appearances and I can tell you that my favorites are Dwaling, Balin, Bombur, Ori and Gloin.

Edit : 




-Dargor- said:


> 3 fucking D



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...............................


































































NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Dec 12, 2011)

... I want the trailer and I want it Now!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bart (Dec 19, 2011)

*New image of Bilbo*


*Warner Bros. has confirmed that the first teaser trailer for the Hobbit will be released at 7pm PST on Tuesday, December 20th. *

_Grimmjowsensei_, all the individual dwarves looks were posted on this thread months ago, soo take a look at them if you've not seen them & _Hellrasinbrasin_, it'll be released tomorrow :WOW


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 19, 2011)

the LOR movies were master pieces this one will be awesome too.


----------



## Bart (Dec 19, 2011)

Exactly, it'll be another one of Jackson's masterpieces :WOW


----------



## Yasha (Dec 20, 2011)

Another year to wait. I must not die before then.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 20, 2011)

Argh, the only movie I care about. Come out sooner.


----------



## Bart (Dec 20, 2011)

The trailer has been released :WOW

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqW_RsugUD0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## dream (Dec 20, 2011)

Pretty decent trailer, can't wait for next December. :33


----------



## Violent-nin (Dec 20, 2011)

Hmm, interesting trailer, the wait will be a pain in the ass.


----------



## Hana (Dec 20, 2011)

There are no words that can express my joy.


----------



## Dream Brother (Dec 20, 2011)

<3<3<3

Can't wait to see this.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 20, 2011)

*YES! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES!!!!*


----------



## Zaeed (Dec 20, 2011)

Very excited about this. Yet again the sets are amazing! Loving the castings for Thorin and Bilbo so far.


----------



## Kuya (Dec 20, 2011)

if there is ever gonna be a movie to surpass Avatar, it sure as hell this one


----------



## dream (Dec 21, 2011)

Kuya said:


> if there is ever gonna be a movie to surpass Avatar, it sure as hell this one





The Hobbit will be pretty successful but it won't be anywhere near the success of Avatar, only Avatar 2 stands a real chance of toppling that giant.


----------



## Kuya (Dec 21, 2011)

Most fans are still alive from the original trilogy and are hungry for more. It was an international hit. If this gets praise for cinematography, i expect it to at least surpass the original trilogy.


----------



## dream (Dec 21, 2011)

It's best to dream about taking down Titanic before even thinking about taking down Avatar.

The most successful LOTR movie only managed to get $1.1 billion in worldwide sales, Titanic had $1.8 billion, that's a lot of ground to cover.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 21, 2011)

that was kinda cool

I'm excited


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Dec 21, 2011)

A trailer and news of LEGO's rights!


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 21, 2011)

Kuya said:


> if there is ever gonna be a movie to surpass Avatar, it sure as hell this one


I hope you mean strictly financially. Comparing my Hobbit to crap like Avatar on any other level is officially punishable blasphemy.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 21, 2011)

The bastard in me is crying that it doesn't look as authentic as the older ones

But I hope it's good. The trailer was okay, seemed too crisp and perfect.


----------



## Nightblade (Dec 21, 2011)

well it is 3D.


----------



## Ciupy (Dec 21, 2011)

Bart said:


> The trailer has been released :WOW
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqW_RsugUD0[/YOUTUBE]



Jesus Christ yes!


----------



## Rukia (Dec 21, 2011)

Why an Unexpected Journey?  Where did that come from?


----------



## KBL (Dec 21, 2011)

*FUCK YES!!!*


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Dec 21, 2011)

Fuck no. 

He butchered the trilogy and he's going to butcher this.  I don't care how pretty the movies look or how nice the soundtrack is; they're going to mangle the book in every way imaginable, most notably in the characters and plot (fuck, I can already spot inaccuracies.  No Galadriel in The Hobbit.  The dwarves do not look like Tolkien described each of them and he described them so vaguely that it isn't like it would have been hard for Jackson to get it fucking right but noooo, he has to change every fucking thing he can think of that can be changed.  Douchebag) and possibly the themes, which are where all the biggest changes were made to the trilogy were...

On the other hand... it can't be worse than that animated version of The Hobbit... can it?  Oh, god... 


You know what? whatever.  So long as Peter Jackson doesn't lay a fucking finger on The Silmarillion, I'm happy (I bet he isn't even good enough at reading to get through it, anyhow).  DO YOU HEAR ME JACKSON?!  DO NOT TOUCH THE SILMARILLION! I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND MAKE YOU PAY IF YOU DO! 

Edit: And don't you movie only fans give me any crap about this.  My grandfather had a LotR nick-name when he was a professor at his university, he and my mom went to stand in line to buy The Silmarillion together when it came out like people did the Harry Potter books; I was practically breast-fed on Tolkien's works.  I read The Silmarillion in 7th grade and cried like a bitch in front of my classmates at the sad parts because the book is THAT FUCKING GOOD. I have a right to be bitter.
You know the third Harry Potter movie?  You know how different it was and how much it sucked compared to the book?  That is _nothing_ compared to Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings; at least the characters were recognizably in character in The Prisoner of Azkaban.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 21, 2011)

Thorin looks like anything but a drawf lol. 

I expected a better trailer TBH.

But still... 

LOTR trailer wasn't so impressive as well. But the movie owned.
I expect no less from this.


----------



## Stringer Bell (Dec 21, 2011)

_Over the Misty Mountains_


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Dec 21, 2011)

Gaawa-chan said:


> No Galadriel in The Hobbit.



Peter Jackson is adding in the whole Sauron in Mirkwood story that was covered in the LOTR Appendices. Its the part where the White Council joins up to flush him out of the forest and back into Mordor. That's why Saruman is also going to be in The Hobbit (If you've seen the production diaries).


----------



## deceptive (Dec 21, 2011)

> You know what? whatever. So long as Peter Jackson doesn't lay a fucking finger on The Silmarillion, I'm happy (I bet he isn't even good enough at reading to get through it, anyhow). DO YOU HEAR ME JACKSON?! DO NOT TOUCH THE SILMARILLION! I WILL HUNT YOU DOWN AND MAKE YOU PAY IF YOU DO!



It's impossible to make a movie adaptation of The Silmarillion. The setting is too large, the time span too long and the story too fragmented. The only way it could be done is if at least 60% of the book was cut. Besides, The Silmarillion is not as popular or well known as LOTR or the Hobbit. Financially speaking, there is no reason to make the movie in the first place. 

Series is a possibility I guess but the budged would have to be absurd. 

The movies are enjoyable if you treat them like a separate entity. I wasn't too happy about the way they changed the characters either tho. Especially the way they treated and portrayed Gandalf.


----------



## Nightblade (Dec 21, 2011)

> No Galadriel in The Hobbit.


gotta have some fanservice. and Galadriel is 

as for Silmarillion. I wouldn't be surprised if they adapted Quenta Simarillion to film. the book as a whole though I don't see happening, but Quenta is a possibility.


----------



## deceptive (Dec 21, 2011)

> as for Silmarillion. I wouldn't be surprised if they adapted Quenta Simarillion to film. the book as a whole though I don't see happening, but Quenta is a possibility.



Quenta is still too big to properly adapt I think unless you again, cut a lot of things out. Think about it, it has to start in Valinor and cover the corruption of Melkor, the exodus of the Elves and the formation of their kingdoms.  Then it would have to cover all the Eldar leaders, the coming of Humans and the Sindari for the rest of the Quenta to have any kind of sense. 

Now imagine the battles that are on a far, far greater scale then anything LOTR has to offer (the biggest battles in LOTR would hardly count as a skirmish in The Sillmarilion). Then there is of Beren and Luthien, the infighting between Elves, the fighting against Dwarves and Elves and finally, the War of Wrath. This is only some of the events in Quenta. 

Like I said, a huge amount of book would have to be cut and changed. It would stop being Silmarilion.


----------



## Hana (Dec 21, 2011)

Rukia said:


> Why an Unexpected Journey?  Where did that come from?



Considering that the movie is cut into 2 parts and that the second movie will be called There and Back Again, An Unexpected Journey is probably taken from the first chapter of the book "An Unexpected Party".


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 21, 2011)

deceptive said:


> It's impossible to make a movie adaptation of The Silmarillion. The setting is too large, the time span too long and the story too fragmented. The only way it could be done is if at least 60% of the book was cut. Besides, The Silmarillion is not as popular or well known as LOTR or the Hobbit. Financially speaking, there is no reason to make the movie in the first place.
> 
> Series is a possibility I guess but the budged would have to be absurd.
> 
> The movies are enjoyable if you treat them like a separate entity. I wasn't too happy about the way they changed the characters either tho. Especially the way they treated and portrayed Gandalf.



Completely agreed. Would be awesome though.

A TV series maybe 

Would be cool if they made a TV series about Akallabeth and/or rings of power.
They seem more doable.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

Gaawa-chan said:


> Fuck no.



Oooo heeey Gaawa-chan :3



Grimmjowsensei said:


> Thorin looks like anything but a drawf lol.



Dwarfs mature differently I guess; Thorin during the Hobbit is around 195 years old whereas Gimli during the Fellowship was around 139.



Stringer Bell said:


> _Over the Misty Mountains_



_Over The Misty Mountains *Cold*_; and I just hope they make full use of it.



deceptive said:


> It's impossible to make a movie adaptation of The Silmarillion. The setting is too large, the time span too long and the story too fragmented. The only way it could be done is if at least 60% of the book was cut.



P.S. Deceptive, it's not impossible to make an adaption of the _Silmarilion_, but it'd have to be reduced so much and the right would have to be gotten from Christopher Tolkien :WOW


----------



## EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! (Dec 21, 2011)

Thorin reminds me of that insane irishman in Braveheart who says, "Him? That can't be William Wallace. I am _prettier_ than this man." 

But fuck yeah, that trailer . Seeing those sweeping camera shots again sends shivers down my spine. I need some of those in Game of Thrones. I need it.


----------



## Felix (Dec 21, 2011)

Gawaa chan go back to your cave you presumptous fuck
You are basically implying that anyone who has read the books can not like the movies if he is a "true" fan.

Hipster


----------



## deceptive (Dec 21, 2011)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Completely agreed. Would be awesome though.
> 
> A TV series maybe
> 
> ...



Indeed, Akallabeth seems doable and it would probably turn out good. Not sure if they would see the profit in doing so tho, unfortunately. :/




			
				Bart said:
			
		

> P.S. Deceptive, it's not impossible to make an adaption of the Silmarilion, but it'd have to be reduced so much and the right would have to be gotten from Christopher Tolkien



Yea, true about the rights. Kinda what I meant, they would have to cut and edit it so much it would stop being The Silmarillion. Too many compromises would have to be made in order to produce a movie and considering how huge the book is I'm pretty sure those necessary compromises would ruin it.

The movies, regardless of how much it was changed (....cowardly and panicky Gandalf) were still very enjoyable and still felt like LOTR because the changes made were comparatively small. 

Wouldn't work with The Silmarilion unfortunately.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

Felix said:


> Gawaa chan go back to your cave you presumptous fuck
> You are basically implying that anyone who has read the books can not like the movies if he is a "true" fan.
> 
> Hipster



Ooo hey Felix, and calm down lol ^^

But anyone can like the films even if they've read the books, or even if they've not :WOW


----------



## Felix (Dec 21, 2011)

I have read the Triology, I cried when I saw that Tom Bombadil would not be in it but other than that I enjoyed every bit and piece of the movies. Loved them to death, still do! 
I have read the Silmarillion, loved reading the "Bible" of the Middle Earth, gigantic book, a masterpiece in fantasy world building. 
Loved the Hobbit, a book that can be interpreted on so many forms depending if you read it before or after Lord of the Rings.

Now what throws me off is people getting pissed off on the movies like it was pissing on Tolkiens grave and shitting on his descendency.

If you didn't like the movies and cannot only read the "ABSOLUTE CANON 10010101010101%%%%" then go back to your cave and don't force your opinion on us like it was a fact.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

deceptive said:


> Yea, true about the rights. Kinda what I meant, they would have to cut and edit it so much it would stop being The Silmarillion. Too many compromises would have to be made in order to produce a movie and considering how huge the book is I'm pretty sure those necessary compromises would ruin it.
> 
> The movies, regardless of how much it was changed (....cowardly and panicky Gandalf) were still very enjoyable and still felt like LOTR because the changes made were comparatively small.
> 
> Wouldn't work with The Silmarilion unfortunately.



Ah I see. Well yeah that you're right. I think if the Hobbit did something such as pulling off a feat like surpassing Avatar then The Silmarillion maybe be considered, but pretty much I agree with what you'd said.

I read something a few months ago of Stanley Kubrick saying that LOTR was virtually unfilmable, and ironically many decades later Jackson proved that wrong, with obvious changes being made due to the difference between written prose and cinema.

Well yeah of the changes in LOTR were pretty small and were a tad bit necessary if I'm being honest, especially in parts of the Fellowship.



Felix said:


> I have read the Triology, I cried when I saw that Tom Bombadil would not be in it but other than that I enjoyed every bit and piece of the movies. Loved them to death, still do!
> I have read the Silmarillion, loved reading the "Bible" of the Middle Earth, gigantic book, a masterpiece in fantasy world building.
> Loved the Hobbit, a book that can be interpreted on so many forms depending if you read it before or after Lord of the Rings.
> 
> ...



Oooo awesome awesome :3

Well yeah I kinda agree with that and yeah it does kind of annoy me too that some people say it; it's just another story really.

To any person against the adaptions or anything else I'd simply say why did Tolkien sell the rights of LOTR or The Hobbit? That pretty much sums my thoughts on that matter :WOW


----------



## Superrazien (Dec 21, 2011)

People you got to realize the movies are never going to be 100% like the book. You can make a book as long as you want, and you can put anything in it. The only limit is your vocabulary, and Tolkien had a extensive vocabulary. Movies are much more limited than books, and you can't make them as long as you want. 

If Tolkien was alive today and was asked to condense LotR into a short story of 200 pages, he would look at you like you are on drugs.


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Dec 21, 2011)

Felix said:


> Gawaa chan go back to your cave you presumptous fuck
> You are basically implying that anyone who has read the books can not like the movies if he is a "true" fan.
> 
> Hipster



Um... no.  All I meant is that those who have NOT read the books are in no place to criticize my distaste for the movies or attempt to justify The Return of the King winning Best Screen Adaptation or any of that other bullshit.  Thanks for the strawman, ad hominem, and neg, though. 




Superrazien said:


> People you got to realize the movies are never going to be 100% like the book.



It is one thing to cut things out.  Jackson also ADDED SHIT IN as well as fundamentally altering the characters as well as various plot points for no fucking reason.  The shortest book became the longest movie.




I have the right to my own fucking opinion as well as the right to state it.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

Oh no ... guys, please stop negging each other and stuff 



Gaawa-chan said:


> Um... no.  All I meant is that those who have NOT read the books are in no place to criticize my distaste for the movies or attempt to justify The Return of the King winning Best Screen Adaptation or any of that other bullshit.  Thanks for the strawman, ad hominem, and neg, though.
> 
> It is one thing to cut things out.  Jackson also ADDED SHIT IN as well as fundamentally altering the characters as well as various plot points for no fucking reason.  The shortest book became the longest movie.
> 
> I have the right to my own fucking opinion as well as the right to state it.



Gaawa, still Jackson's meshing of _The Hobbit_ and _The Silmarillion_ is still a really fascinating thing, and as you stated several of the characters appearing weren't in the book but they existed, nevertheless, and the uniqueness of each Dwarf was paramount as it would be awfully confusing, even with the different colour hoods/capes they worn in the book, if they looked the same.

He's merely adding in additions that were stated in the appendicies of the Lord of the Rings, so I don't think we can begrudge him that.

Also don't forget that Tolkien was going to to revise The Hobbit into a Lord of the Rings-esque style :WOW


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 21, 2011)

Bart said:


> The trailer has been released :WOW
> 
> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqW_RsugUD0[/YOUTUBE]


yup seem as epic as the LOR movies.


----------



## Distance (Dec 21, 2011)

Trailer is decent. Wasn't too hot. Wasn't too cold. It was just right!


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 21, 2011)

I am a hardcore Tolkien fan and I loved LOTR the movie. I usually hate when the original work goes through some revisions, but in lotr the changes didn't disturb me at all.
You should try to see things from a different perspective here. The books are long and full of details. Most details are really hard to adopt to the screen. Some changes are necessary and make the movie better.
For example, Arwen coming to frodo's aid as he passed the river, instead of Glorfindel. It was a nice change. Arwen was a more important character than Glorfindel and Glorfinden was never deeply explored. So imo, Arwen stealing Glorfindel's spot was better from a movie perspectve.

Eitherway I trust in Jackson's work. I believe they'll make a decent job. Hobbit is a great novel and easier to adapt to the big screen. If they did a successfull job with LOTR, its almost certain that they'll do a good job with this.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

What, Grimmjowsensei, brilliantly said :3

I would have really liked to have seen Glorfindel in the Fellowship though, given he's essentially one of my favourite of Tolkien's character and obviously one of the most powerful entities in Middle Earth :WOW


----------



## Federer (Dec 21, 2011)

I just had an orgasm when I saw the trailer.


----------



## deceptive (Dec 21, 2011)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I am a hardcore Tolkien fan and I loved LOTR the movie. I usually hate when the original work goes through some revisions, but in lotr the changes didn't disturb me at all.
> You should try to see things from a different perspective here. The books are long and full of details. Most details are really hard to adopt to the screen. Some changes are necessary and make the movie better.
> For example, Arwen coming to frodo's aid as he passed the river, instead of Glorfindel. It was a nice change. Arwen was a more important character than Glorfindel and Glorfinden was never deeply explored. So imo, Arwen stealing Glorfindel's spot was better from a movie perspectve.
> 
> Eitherway I trust in Jackson's work. I believe they'll make a decent job. Hobbit is a great novel and easier to adapt to the big screen. If they did a successfull job with LOTR, its almost certain that they'll do a good job with this.



Like yourself, I really enjoyed the movies but one thing irks me and that's the way Gandalf was portrayed in some situations. 

He is shown to be far more nervous, in some cases down right panicky, than his usual self. His excessive fear of the Witch-king of Angmar is also out of place. Gandalf is a Maia and even tho his power was limited it's hard to believe that he would show that much fear in front of something that is ultimately human. Let alone be defeated by it. 

It's not a huge thing but I don't see the *need* for that particular alteration. "Adds to drama" is a possible explanation but...well.



> I would have really liked to have seen Glorfindel in the Fellowship though, given he's essentially one of my favourite of Tolkien's character and obviously one of the most powerful entities in Middle Earth



Would be interesting to see him but it would seem somewhat out of place given the context of the movies. People not familiar with the books would probably go "Who the hell is this guy now?" Arwen made more sense.


----------



## Hellrasinbrasin (Dec 21, 2011)

... Ah something to feed my Tolkien habit until December 2012


----------



## Dream Brother (Dec 21, 2011)

Frankly, I'm really glad that Jackson was liberal with the source material. (This is coming from someone who nearly always prefers a book to its movie adaptation.) 

I love the LotR movies, and I'm hoping this one will be just as lovely. I'm a big fan of _The Hobbit_, and I've read it many times, but I don't think I'll really care if Jackson changes or adds things. I trust his judgement, because he's shown that he knows how to create compelling drama and how to provide emotional links to the characters.


----------



## TetraVaal (Dec 21, 2011)

Not gonna lie, next to the first redband trailer for 'Drive', this is probably my favorite trailer of the year.


----------



## Ciupy (Dec 21, 2011)

They will never bring the Silmarillion to the big screen,at least not without butchering the shit out of it.

The Silmarillion and Dune are the two books that I've read and  thought straight-up that they cannot be made into good movies due to their nature so that's that.

What motherfuckers should be doing right now is making the Hyperion saga into movies!


----------



## Parallax (Dec 21, 2011)

The thing about Silmarillion is that it's a dry history text

of course they can't make it into a movie


----------



## Ciupy (Dec 21, 2011)

Parallax said:


> The thing about Silmarillion is that it's a dry history text
> 
> of course they can't make it into a movie




What I meant is they could try to expand on the characters from Silmarillion to make a couple of movies..and I don't want that..


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 21, 2011)

deceptive said:


> Like yourself, I really enjoyed the movies but one thing irks me and that's the way Gandalf was portrayed in some situations.
> 
> He is shown to be far more nervous, in some cases down right panicky, than his usual self. His excessive fear of the Witch-king of Angmar is also out of place. Gandalf is a Maia and even tho his power was limited it's hard to believe that he would show that much fear in front of something that is ultimately human. Let alone be defeated by it.
> 
> It's not a huge thing but I don't see the *need* for that particular alteration. "Adds to drama" is a possible explanation but...well.



I agree. 
I think 'humanizing' Gandalf was more of an intentional thing. Like yourself, I really can't say I am a supporter of the notion though. I mean, Gandalf was as perfect as he was. 
Everytime I think about Olorin, I get goosebumps. He is perhaps one of the mightiest Tolkien characters.

I wish he had more time to expand on him, and the 'Istari'. 



> Would be interesting to see him but it would seem somewhat out of place given the context of the movies. People not familiar with the books would probably go "Who the hell is this guy now?" Arwen made more sense.



Yeah basically..



Bart said:


> What, Grimmjowsensei, brilliantly said :3
> 
> I would have really liked to have seen Glorfindel in the Fellowship though, given he's essentially one of my favourite of Tolkien's character and obviously one of the most powerful entities in Middle Earth :WOW



Well yeah, when you consider that the Glorfindel that appears in LOTR and the one in Silmarillion(who defeated the balrog) are one and the same, he becomes important and pretty awesome.
Although I don't recall such reference being made in neither LOTR or Silmarillion.


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Dec 21, 2011)

We get spiderwebs but no spiders of Mirkwood? Profound sadness.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Dec 21, 2011)

My body is ready. too bad I have to wait a year.

On the subject of adapting the Silmarillion...I'm in the camp that it would be practically impossible to adapt into movie form...unless by some miracle you had the best creative staff imaginable to try it


----------



## SageMaster (Dec 21, 2011)

My body is not ready. Just watching old Bilbo and Frodo gave me epic goosebumps.

Can't wait for this amazing movie.


----------



## SageMaster (Dec 21, 2011)

Eternal Goob said:


> The Hobbit will be pretty successful but it won't be anywhere near the success of Avatar, only Avatar 2 stands a real chance of toppling that giant.



I don't see why not. RotK is one of the few movies to reach 1 billion dollars worldwide. The Hobbit should be even more succesfull, considering the price of 3D tickets, and millions of fans who grew up with the trilogy waiting for this one.

It's not easy, but it's possible.


----------



## Bart (Dec 21, 2011)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Well yeah, when you consider that the Glorfindel that appears in LOTR and the one in Silmarillion(who defeated the balrog) are one and the same, he becomes important and pretty awesome.
> Although I don't recall such reference being made in neither LOTR or Silmarillion.



Well yeah exactly :3



SageMaster said:


> I don't see why not. RotK is one of the few movies to reach 1 billion dollars worldwide. The Hobbit should be even more succesfull, considering the price of 3D tickets, and millions of fans who grew up with the trilogy waiting for this one.
> 
> It's not easy, but it's possible.



It has the potential, most definitely and _There and Back Again_, which'll be released in 2013 has the most potential as far as I'm concerned. A lot people forget that _Return of the King_ wasn't surpassed for 8 years, and only by 3D films. The only reason Titanic made more when it came out before was due to the fact it was in cinema's for longer than a whole full year.

There's so many factors which are for this to happen; as far as I'm concerned it's the only film apart from the two Avatar sequels that has the potential of surpassing Avatar :WOW


----------



## Gaawa-chan (Dec 22, 2011)

Bart said:


> Oooo heeey Gaawa-chan :3



Forgot to say hello.  Hello! 

Edit: Aw, Seiko wants me to die for having an opinion about shitty screen adaptations.  How cute of widdle Seiko.  I would have thought that Seiko had grown out of diapers by now, but apparently not. So cute. pek


----------



## Mikaveli (Dec 22, 2011)

yes                             !


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 22, 2011)

So we have a trailer now, but have to wait an entire year for this movie. And then another year for the second one. Great.


----------



## Bart (Dec 22, 2011)

Gaawa-chan said:


> Forgot to say hello.  Hello!



Heeey :WOW



Super Goob said:


> yes                             !



Yeah :3



tari101190 said:


> So we have a trailer now, but have to wait an entire year for this movie. And then another year for the second one. Great.



Patience lol


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 22, 2011)

Bart said:


> Patience lol


I don't understand. It makes me so mad.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 22, 2011)

It's only been out 2 days and I think I can replay the trailer in its entirety in my head now. 



Grimmjowsensei said:


> For example, Arwen coming to frodo's aid as he passed the river, instead of Glorfindel. It was a nice change. Arwen was a more important character than Glorfindel and Glorfinden was never deeply explored. So imo, Arwen stealing Glorfindel's spot was better from a movie perspectve.



Maybe if they had chosen someone who could actually act for Arwen, I could have handled her role in the movies. The movies were brilliantly cast for the most part, but she was lacking. 

But in regards to LotR, I hope they bring it to theaters again before The Hobbit comes out. They did it for 3 nights in the US this last summer and it sold out pretty much everywhere. Definitely worth it though.


----------



## Furious George (Dec 24, 2011)

_Far over the Misty Mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old

The pines were roaring on the height,
The winds were moaning in the night,
The fire was red, it flaming spread;
The trees like torches blazed with light. _


----------



## Bart (Dec 24, 2011)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFUh_k2ipqo[/YOUTUBE]



tari101190 said:


> I don't understand. It makes me so mad.



Eeeeeek :WOW



PikaCheeka said:


> It's only been out 2 days and I think I can replay the trailer in its entirety in my head now.



Pretty much the same here.



Furious George said:


> _Far over the Misty Mountains cold
> To dungeons deep and caverns old
> 
> The pines were roaring on the height,
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



Far over the Misty Mountains cold,
To dungeons deep and caverns old,
We must away, ere break of day,
To seek our pale enchanted gold.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells,
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

For ancient king and elvish lord
There many a gleaming golden hoard
They shaped and wrought, and light they caught,
To hide in gems on hilt of sword.

On silver necklaces they strung
The flowering stars, on crowns they hung
The dragon-fire, on twisted wire
They meshed the light of moon and sun.

Far over the Misty Mountains cold,
To dungeons deep and caverns old,
We must away, ere break of day,
To claim our long-forgotten gold.

Goblets they carved there for themselves,
And harps of gold, where no man delves
There lay they long, and many a song
Was sung unheard by men or elves.

The pines were roaring on the heights,
The wind was moaning in the night,
The fire was red, it flaming spread,
The trees like torches blazed with light.

The bells were ringing in the dale,
And men looked up with faces pale.
The dragon's ire, more fierce than fire,
Laid low their towers and houses frail.

The mountain smoked beneath the moon.
The dwarves, they heard the tramp of doom.
They fled the hall to dying fall
Beneath his feet, beneath the moon.

Far over the Misty Mountains grim,
To dungeons deep and caverns dim,
We must away, ere break of day,
To win our harps and gold from him!

The wind was on the withered heath,
But in the forest stirred no leaf:
There shadows lay be night or day,
And dark things silent crept beneath.

The wind came down from mountains cold,
And like a tide it roared and rolled.
The branches groaned, the forest moaned,
And leaves were laid upon the mould.

The wind went on from West to East;
All movement in the forest ceased.
But shrill and harsh across the marsh,
Its whistling voices were released.

The grasses hissed, their tassels bent,
The reeds were rattling--on it went.
O'er shaken pool under heavens cool,
Where racing clouds were torn and rent.

It passed the Lonely Mountain bare,
And swept above the dragon's lair:
There black and dark lay boulders stark,
And flying smoke was in the air.

It left the world and took its flight
Over the wide seas of the night.
The moon set sale upon the gale,
And stars were fanned to leaping light.

Under the Mountain dark and tall,
The King has come unto his hall!
His foe is dead, the Worm of Dread,
And ever so his foes shall fall!

The sword is sharp, the spear is long,
The arrow swift, the Gate is strong.
The heart is bold that looks on gold;
The dwarves no more shall suffer wrong.

The dwarves of yore made mighty spells,
While hammers fell like ringing bells
In places deep, where dark things sleep,
In hollow halls beneath the fells.

On silver necklaces they strung
The light of stars, on crowns they hung
The dragon-fire, from twisted wire
The melody of harps they wrung.

The mountain throne once more is freed!
O! Wandering folk, the summons heed!
Come haste! Come haste! Across the waste!
The king of freind and kin has need.

Now call we over the mountains cold,
'Come back unto the caverns old!'
Here at the gates the king awaits,
His hands are rich with gems and gold.

The king has come unto his hall
Under the Mountain dark and tall.
The Worm of Dread is slain and dead,
And ever so our foes shall fall!

Farewell we call to hearth and hall!
Though wind may blow and rain may fall,
We must away, ere break of day
Far over the wood and mountain tall.

To Rivendell, where Elves yet dwell
In glades beneath the misty fell.
Through moor and waste we ride in haste,
And whither then we cannot tell.

With foes ahead, behind us dread,
Beneath the sky shall be our bed,
Until at last our toil be passed,
Our journey done, our errand sped.

We must away! We must away!
We ride before the break of day!


----------



## Furious George (Dec 24, 2011)

Bart said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was seriously considering re-reading the book after watching that trailer.... several times over the past few days. 

Link removed 
^
This link currently has gotten over 9,000,000 views within 4 days. Its crazy.


----------



## Bart (Dec 24, 2011)

Well you should really re-read it then hehe :3

I'm re-reading Lord of the Rings at the moment; and well yeah, makes you wonder if it can actually surpass Avatar's total worldwide when it's released :WOW


----------



## The Imp (Dec 24, 2011)

The soundtrack for this is going to be glorious.


----------



## Adagio (Dec 24, 2011)

Is it confirmed that Howard Shore is doing it?


----------



## Huey Freeman (Dec 25, 2011)

I read the book and I literally had to reread some parts because when I saw this trailer I could have sworn Thorin could have passed for a human . (its not just him either ). WTF Jackson!


----------



## Federer (Dec 25, 2011)

Bart said:


> Well you should really re-read it then hehe :3
> 
> I'm re-reading Lord of the Rings at the moment; and well yeah, makes you wonder if it can actually surpass Avatar's total worldwide when it's released :WOW



Most likely not, Cameron already had the highest grossing movie with Titanic, the fact that he hadn't made any movie for 10 years, the fact that Avatar was made with 'new' technology and stuff [higher price] helped quite a bit. 

Although the movie was disappointing. Cameron isn't really known for his great storytelling movies, but Avatar was basically a live action Disney movie with cheesy lines and a predictable plot. His earlier work, Terminator among others had a far better script, plot etc.

I have no doubt that Peter Jackson's Hobbit will become a better movie and with a loyal fanbase from the earlier three movies, it will likely become a huge succes, but not sure whether it will surpass the gross of the Titanic, let alone Avatar.


----------



## Nrin (Dec 25, 2011)

Federer said:


> Although the movie was disappointing. Cameron isn't really known for his great storytelling movies, but Avatar was basically a live action Disney movie with cheesy lines and a predictable plot.



Have you seen it in Imax 3d? 

I'm asking cuz that movie is, imo, mostly about atmosphere. Plz don't tell me you've seen it in imax in its full glory and still wasn't captivated by the beauty of Pandora(dat planet where blue guyz lived) and the Navi lifestyle. I watched the movie a couple of times just cuz I longed for the world itself shown in the movie.

Some other things about the movie I loved were how it gets people to symphatize with the Navi against the humans and it's brave? references to the recent US wars. I agree with the lines and plot being a bit lame but like I said, those are not the strong points of the movie imo.


----------



## Federer (Dec 25, 2011)

I haven't seen it in Imax nor 3d, I'm pretty sure anyone who likes special effects would had an orgasm when they saw Avatar in 3d. 

However, to my opinion, a masterpiece should always be a masterpiece even if it's in black and white.

You can say I'm more a guy who likes a good story, instead of an orgy of SE.


----------



## Okami (Dec 26, 2011)

Adagio said:


> Is it confirmed that Howard Shore is doing it?



Yeah, I guess so. I read something about it somewhere. Dunno anymore, but it was  older posts. Howard Shore is a fuckin genius.


----------



## Adagio (Dec 26, 2011)

Then it will be glorious indeed


----------



## Shock Therapy (Dec 27, 2011)

oh hell yea!


----------



## Jena (Dec 28, 2011)

Posting to subscribe.


----------



## Bleach (Mar 1, 2012)




----------



## dream (Mar 2, 2012)

I really liked how they built scaffolds to protect the environment in that one location.  :33


----------



## Hatifnatten (Mar 2, 2012)

Argh, gotta find the strength to not watch it. I don't like production videos, kinda takes away the magic of movies when you see them.


----------



## Bart (Apr 11, 2012)




----------



## Okami (Apr 11, 2012)

Shit. I want to see a new Trailer. I want to see Smaug.


----------



## Bart (Apr 11, 2012)

Smaug won't definitely be shown anytime soon; maybe a quick flash in the trailer out for _There and Back Again_, I mean even _Shelob_ was hardly shown in the _Return of the King_ trailer.

There should be a new trailer during the October/Novemeber period though :WOW


----------



## Okami (Apr 11, 2012)

Bart said:


> Smaug won't definitely be shown anytime soon; maybe a quick flash in the trailer out for _There and Back Again_, I mean even _Shelob_ was hardly shown in the _Return of the King_ trailer.
> 
> There should be a new trailer during the October/Novemeber period though :WOW



Ah I know, sadly. But I still hope. We shall see. 

Yes man !


----------



## Hatifnatten (Apr 11, 2012)

Oh man, I thought some new stuff was out


----------



## -Dargor- (Apr 12, 2012)

This movie can't come out fast enough, it's like the light at the end of the hollywood crappy movies of 2011-2012 tunnel

Evenstar of the big screen


----------



## MajorThor (Apr 12, 2012)

Ōkami said:


> Shit. I want to see a new Trailer. I want to see Smaug.



Prolly wont even see Smaug in the first half.


----------



## Raviene (Apr 12, 2012)

there's only one thing i could say after watching the trailer when i went to a movie i wont name 


*NOSTALGIA!! *

it would have been 9 years since ROTK once this comes out...its been that long


----------



## Bart (Apr 13, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> Oh man, I thought some new stuff was out



Yeah sorry about that lol :3



-Dargor- said:


> This movie can't come out fast enough, it's like the light at the end of the hollywood crappy movies of 2011-2012 tunnel
> 
> Evenstar of the big screen



Exactly :3

Still 2012 has quite a few films that should be watched and of course them being Django Unchained, Prometheus, The Dark Knight Rises, Dredd, Skyfall, Taken 2, 47 Ronin (definitely), Les Miserables and Neighborhood Watch.

But The Hobbit's quite obviously number one.



MajorThor said:


> Prolly wont even see Smaug in the first half.



Probably not :3

If Smaug's included in the film it'll be an snippet of him if An Unexpected Journey includes a prologue which it will beyond any doubt whatsoever, but if the snippet's included it won't be much because of the entire spectacle of Smaug himself.



Raviene said:


> there's only one thing i could say after watching the trailer when i went to a movie i wont name
> 
> *NOSTALGIA!! *
> 
> it would have been 9 years since ROTK once this comes out...its been that long



Pretty much the same, Raviene :3

The amount of money this film's going to make is going to be utterly insane, and that's not even taking into account Part II.


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 13, 2012)

Will watch, but penis isn't hard.


----------



## dream (Apr 13, 2012)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Will watch, but penis isn't hard.



Sometimes that isn't required to enjoy a movie.


----------



## Okami (Apr 20, 2012)

MajorThor said:


> Prolly wont even see Smaug in the first half.



Fuck it. Just a fools hope, correct? :> I'm just excited. I should reread the Book again...now.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Apr 20, 2012)

Ōkami said:


> Fuck it. Just a fools hope, correct? :> I'm just excited. I should reread the Book again...now.



My best guess is we'll see a very brief flimpse of him in a flashback, but we won't see the entirety of him until Bilbo does.


----------



## Federer (Apr 20, 2012)

CrazyMoronX said:


> Will watch, but penis isn't hard.



But your nipples are. :ho


----------



## Bart (Apr 20, 2012)

Ōkami said:


> Fuck it. Just a fools hope, correct? :> I'm just excited. I should reread the Book again...now.



It just depends whether they'll use a prologue, which I think they will; but I'm guessing we may have a perspective from Thorin when he arrives with his company to Bag End.

But yeah pretty much we won't see Smaug in full form until 2013.


----------



## Pilaf (Apr 25, 2012)

I'm more interested in the Necromancer than Smaug. Both are voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch, interestingly. 

I like that they're using things from the appendixes of LOTR and other Tolkien works like "unfinished tales" to flesh out the Hobbit story, because all the Gandalf/White Council stuff that was going on at the same time as Bilbo's adventure are important setups to LOTR. All that stuff from the trailer that people are complaining about as not being Tolkien is actually all Tolkien, just not from the Hobbit. I personally think it has a place in the film because it takes place at the same time as the Hobbit and is alluded to in the dialogue of that book vaguely, when Gandalf mentions "pressing business in the South."


----------



## Bart (Apr 26, 2012)

*Description Of The Hobbit Footage*

A bit late of me, but there was some footage of The Hobbit shown rather recently; but a lot of the people said the whole 48 fps wasn't particularly good _(quite remarkably negative comments from some)_.

But here is it:

*The Badass Digest's review of The Hobbit footage:*

*Spoiler*: __ 



_"There was a lot of the helicopter shots you expect in a Lord of the Rings movie. Lots of shots of the dwarves trudging over mountains (again, this stuff looked spectacular). There was some of the business we saw in the trailer, with the introduction of the company of dwarves. There were also some quick shots - the company floating down a river in barrels, Gandalf running through a dungeon, being jumped on by a wild man of some sort, Tauriel slides into the scene with bow and arrow at the ready. Brown outfit with braided hairdo. Medium brown hair (not blond). Legolas appeared at the end of the scene with Tauriel. AS the dwarves are running covered in webs, they are suddenly confronted by Elves, and Legolas has an arrow pointed at Thorin's nose, saying "I will not hesitate to kill you, dwarf!" setting up for his attitude in LOTR. His costume is the same as LOTR. Tauriel's is similar, but in brown rather than green. There were also a handful of longer scenes that we saw.

We saw Bilbo's meeting with the three trolls. One positive aspect of the 48fps is that since everything looks so video, the digital creatures look more like they're on the set. The tone of the scene is very playfully threatening, with the trolls having dim reactions. The scene ends with the dwarves coming to Bilbo's rescue in a big battle against the trolls.

We also saw Gandalf investigating the rising darkness. In one scene he is at a table with Elrond, Galadriel and Saruman, talking about ancient tombs that have been opened (discussing the Witch King's sword that was stolen from his tomb)- ancient tombs with such strong binding spells no one should have been able to get in. Then there's a scene of Gandalf investigating the open tomb, where he runs into a very silly Radagast the Brown, who has some birds under his hat (we also saw a shot of his sled being pulled by bunnies). It turns out the opened tombs belong the nine Ring Wraiths.

The biggest scene was Bilbo meeting Gollum. Despite being told what we were seeing were unfinished effects, Gollum looked great (and again, the 48fps gave him more of a sense of being actually there). The scene was cut a little slackly; I imagine the final version will be tighter. But it was good."_




P.S. Pretty much what you said there, Pilaf; but I'm only sure they are limited to the LOTR appendices as Christopher Tolkien's reluctant to give the rights to anything else, such as the Silmarillion for example _(a bit change as his father sold the rights in adapting LOTR and even championed Christopher Lee in playing Gandalf at one point)_. But given what the description so far of the footage is, Jackson seems to be additing some creations of his own i.e. the tomb :WOW


----------



## CrazyMoronX (Apr 26, 2012)

Eternal Goob said:


> Sometimes that isn't required to enjoy a movie.



That only happens when you really, really want to see a movie.


----------



## dream (Apr 26, 2012)

CrazyMoronX said:


> That only happens when you really, really want to see a movie.



Or when a movie is good.


----------



## Bart (Apr 26, 2012)

Crazy and Goob, you remind me of two characters from _Middle Earth_ 

P.S. You both need to rate this thread, highly mind you :WOW


----------



## αshɘs (Apr 27, 2012)

So, about the 48 fps reactions, I looked around a bit:

And the UK trailer which goes into some more detail.  


hmm, some of these really do remind me of my first reactions to when my dad got his HD TV and I watched some stuff on it.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Apr 27, 2012)

I can actually see 48fps looking way too crisp for it's own good.


----------



## Bart (Apr 27, 2012)

*Detailed version of The Hobbit footage from The Ong Ring.NET:*


*Spoiler*: __ 



PJ's intro was mostly about the technical aspects, saying that this change in frame rate is analogous to moving from silent to sound.

Opening shots were helicopter shots, similar to opening of TTT. Gorgeous. Sunrise over Misty Mountains to the fluting strains of Howard Shore music. Followed by a few shots that were seen in the trailer, intros of characters, etc.

Dol Guldur/Thrain - Gandalf is seen wandering through sub-dungeon of Dol Guldur, searching through corridors as if being chased. Thrain crazed, out his mind from torture, jumps out of the dark in a "Boo!" moment and attacks Gandalf. Yes, this is the scene from the trailer. Thrain's face is not closely seen. No other creatures are seen there.

Scenes of Bilbo in the Shire, mostly stuff we've seen in the trailer or vlogs. Martin Freeman as Bilbo is very different from other hobbits. He has a lightness and elan, with a very light comedic touch. Not like slapstick humor of Merry & Pippin. Fresh, funny, approachable, comedic but not too much. Quickbeam was very enthusiastic about his performance.

Saruman/White Council - this was still green screen, no grading or background effects added yet. Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf are shown sitting with Saruman. Radagast was not present. Galadriel looking at a sword, identifies as a Morgul blade. Everyone is aghast as she tells the history of the blade as she says it is the sword of the Witch-King and he was destroyed long before in battles with the North Kingdom. He was held in a dungeon in the North from which he should not have been able to escape but Galadriel is afraid that this means he has. Saruman is studying it carefully, with maybe a glint in his eye.

Galadriel touching Gandalf's face. The context is Galadriel asking Gandalf why he chose this particular hobbit. Gandalf says, almost to himself, that it is because he sometimes feels a little afraid and Bilbo gives him courage. Galadriel touches his face and tells him not to be afraid, that he always has friends.

Radagast - Gandalf is shown alone in the dark with his staff lit, searching through catacombs where the ringwraith's tombs are...then Radagast appears suddenly. Both put their staffs down the tunnel to see the tombs broken open. Radagast seems rather childlike, like he is more in tune wth animals than people. Radagast's staff is similar to Gandalf's; a knobbly wooden staff. Radagast is "weird and wonderful" looks nothing like the Decipher card. This is a new Radagast is an "unbelievable, crazy, cool, mess", with a bird's nest on his head. Quickbeam loved his appearance and style. Radagast was only shown in the dark, "Moria-style" dungeon which was only lit by Gandalf's staff. It was hard to see costume details but they appeared to be a mixture of black and brown, with a "weird shaped" hat with flaps on it. He has a bird nest on his head under his hat. Was conversing with Gandalf about the crypts/tombs that had once belonged to the Ringwraiths. Radagast also has a staff. The only other shot of Radagast was him flying by in his sled. Radagast has a sled that runs on the forest floor, drawn by larger-than-life (but not giant) grey jackrabbits. Q really liked the sled, thought it was cool.

Mirkwood, the dwarves are shown after their spider sequence, they are covered in spider webs. Don't see much of Mirkwood, what is seen has spider webs everywhere. Tauriel slides into the scene with bow and arrow at the ready. Brown outfit with braided hairdo. Medium brown hair (not blond). Legolas appeared at the end of the scene with Tauriel. AS the dwarves are running covered in webs, they are suddenly confronted by Elves, and Legolas has an arrow pointed at Thorin's nose, saying "I will not hesitate to kill you, dwarf!" setting up for his attitude in LOTR. His costume is the same as LOTR. Tauriel's is similar, but in brown rather than green.

Not shown in the footage - No shot of Thranduil. No Laketown, no Elven halls. No shots of spiders or eagles. No Beorn. No Rhosgobel or Necromancer. No shots of Dale, Lonely Mountain or any hint of Smaug. No shots of goblins. No Bard or Master of Laketown. No hint of Aragorn/Rangers, etc. No shots of the Ring. Not much of the music, it's still be worked on. No dwarf singing, no Elves on horseback, no wargs, no goblins. No dwarf women.

Dwarves - Dwarves look great, with a lot of detail. Some are presented in a comedic way, some serious, all very different and distinct characters. No more dwarf singing. Sounds like mostly what we've already seen in trailer and vlogs except for one brief shot of dwarves in barrels on the river, with some effects tape visible - not a finished scene.

Trolls - They showed about a minute and a half of troll scene. Features some camera shots from above, creating a good sense of perspective with the live actors. Scene begins with a scene of Bilbo suddenly caught by "ginormous" hill trolls. In the troll scene, all the dwarves come runnign to rescue Bilbo. One of the younger ones takes an axe stroke at the legs of one troll, others stab at their feet. The trolls are articulate in speech with heavy Cockney accents. The scene goes similar to the book but not exactly. Wallet is not shown (or heard). "burrahobbit" is in, though we hear a "g" sound in there so it comes out like "burgahobbit". One of the trolls reminded Q a little of "Sloth" from The Goonies, with a slightly misshapen face

Riddle scene - Gollum is a "new vision" because he is now in 48fps. Scene is established with Bilbo begging for a way out of the cave but Gollum wants to play riddles. He identifies himself as Smeagol. Gollum regrets giving his name as Bilbo later regrets giving his. The Riddle scene was shown intercut with action scene with trolls, running with spiderwebs, Bilbo in the Shire. Gollum is mostly being Smeagol because he's trying to interact with another being that isn't a goblin. Bilbo still feels threatened and has Sting out in a defensive way. Sting is not glowing yet (there are no orcs present). Bilbo is wearing the same color jacket in the cave scene as in LOTR - he apparently leaves Rivendell wearing that jacket. - the scene ends with Gollum proposing the "stakes" - Bilbo saying if he wins, Gollum has to show him the way out. Gollum agrees and says that if he wins, "we gets to eats it raw". Bilbo hesitates and then agrees. Gollum comes off as attracted by the idea of talking with a fellow being, but also hungry, so we get a sense of the schizophrenic Seamgol/Gollum divide. 

Returning characters - Christopher Lee might look slightly older, but Gandalf and Galadriel look the same. The returning characters look just the same as in LOTR. Legolas appears briefly.

Frame rate/3D - 48fps was crystal-clear and vivid, not like watching film. The images are "very sharp", the depth of field is "amazing". Quickbeam says he doesn't know if it's "too clear", it is very different and it you'll have to acclimate to it. The prosthetics did not look fake. The digital work of the CGI creatures looks even better at the higher frame rate. He says the trolls look fantastic. It will take some getting used to, whether people will like it immediately or not is hard to tell. It looks brighter and more vivid than LOTR footage. If there are complaints about the new framerate "I'm not surprised, welcome to the new frontier." It's a major change that will take adjustment. Fans will have the choice to see it in 2D or 3D -yes, 3D glasses will be needed. Quickbeam wore his comfortably over his usual glasses at this event. There were no scenes of "gimmick" 3D with things coming straight out of the screen, more a sense of depth in the image.




P.S. Much of the footage was incomplete as far as editing, contrast, colour etc were concerned so obviously the 48fps issue'll be sorted out before December occurs :WOW


----------



## Kuya (May 3, 2012)

lol silly Google.

Go to Google Maps, then "Get Directions"

- Make sure to hit the "Walk" transportation option
- In Location A, type "The Shire"
- In Location B, type "Mordor"

and then look what it says


----------



## -Dargor- (May 3, 2012)

*Spoiler*: __ 



lol damn, one and a half day, guess Frodo should have used google maps.



I was almost hoping for a big "One does not simply walk into Mordor" in capital letters, that would have been awesome.


----------



## Bart (May 4, 2012)

Kuya said:


> lol silly Google.
> 
> Go to Google Maps, then "Get Directions"
> 
> ...





-Dargor- said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## dream (May 4, 2012)

Kuya said:


> lol silly Google.
> 
> Go to Google Maps, then "Get Directions"
> 
> ...



Google can be pretty awesome.


----------



## Hatifnatten (May 4, 2012)

So I've seen few mins of that footage. In bad quality though, but it does look just like TV or home camera, very "reality like". Really awkward. That's not how I want to see movies.

I wonder can it be fixed at all. Like, are there any options with 48 fps or it's just gonna look like that in any way.


----------



## -Dargor- (May 16, 2012)

Just watched the production videos and wow, New Zealand is such a beautiful place.


----------



## Don Draper (Jun 13, 2012)

Last week a new production video was released, a studio tour which was pretty interesting and cool in my opinion especially with the scale doubles. Cool ending too. 

Can watch it  from Jackson's facebook.


----------



## Nightblade (Jun 14, 2012)

behind the scenes vlog was all kinds of awesome. you get to see just how complex the film making process is, especially for this film.

mini-Legolas!


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jun 14, 2012)

I don't want the magic to be ruined. Will stay away from behind the scenes.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jun 14, 2012)

i watched the trailer b4 prometheus, i didn't get hyped about this, felt like i was watching some lotr again.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 16, 2012)

Well it is some LoTR again...

Don't see anything wrong with that.


----------



## Fierce (Jun 16, 2012)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate doesn't care about it unless there's tits and ass.


----------



## Nightblade (Jun 16, 2012)

well there is tits and ass in the Hobbit.

courtesy of Bombur.


----------



## αshɘs (Jul 11, 2012)




----------



## Bleach (Jul 11, 2012)

How many of you are going to watch it in 3D? I think that would ruin it for me so I definitely won't.


----------



## dream (Jul 11, 2012)

I'll be staying away from the 3D version.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Jul 11, 2012)

Far over the Misty Mountains cold
To dungeons deep and caverns old
We must away ere break of day
To seek our pale enchanted gold


----------



## Hana (Jul 15, 2012)

Please tell me someone recorded the 12 minutes of footage from comic con.


----------



## Bleach (Jul 15, 2012)

Noooo doooooon't! I don't wanna spoil mah self!


----------



## Hana (Jul 15, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]HselkQMNXKM[/YOUTUBE]

This is the panel without the 12 mins of footage.


----------



## dream (Jul 15, 2012)

I would have loved to have been at comic con.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jul 16, 2012)

Meh Id rather wait for the real deal.

Second hand cam crap isn't worthy of the epicness this movie is.

Can't come out soon enough


----------



## EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! (Jul 30, 2012)

PJ said:
			
		

> So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.



Um . . . we'll get to Smaug during the first movie, right? Right?


----------



## Bleach (Jul 30, 2012)

Fenix Down said:


> Um . . . we'll get to Smaug during the first movie, right? Right?



Really? I don't know what to say to this...... Bleh....


----------



## dream (Jul 30, 2012)

I don't mind this.


----------



## Bart (Jul 30, 2012)

Yeah, I need to change that bit soon 

I need to close this thread for a while also ;O


----------



## Parallax (Jul 30, 2012)

3 movies?  It's not that long of a book.  In fact the book is a 300+ book thats just as long as Fellowship

I smell money being involved


----------



## Bart (Jul 30, 2012)

Parallax, it's not just the Hobbit :3

They're using vast amounts of the _Silmarillion_, well the last chapter at the very least due to Christopher Tolkien ;S and the 126 pages of the appendices, which is why three films are needed.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 30, 2012)

FUCK MAKE 10 movies I'll got see em ! 

But Peter said they won't be doing silmarillion anytime soon which both sucks and rules @ the same time.

Silmarillion is just vast material. Wouldn'T it be friggin awesome if it was made into a TV series ? 

Yes it would


----------



## dream (Jul 30, 2012)

> Silmarillion is just vast material. Wouldn'T it be friggin awesome if it was made into a TV series ?



I want to see Fingolfin vs Melkor.


----------



## tashtin (Jul 30, 2012)

Three Hobbit movies - this has the potential to be the worst decision in movie making history. The book doesn't have enough material for three books. 

This could drag unless Jackson decides to incorporate flashbacks of the silmarillion - only then will it be the greatest decision in movie making history.

Flashbacks of the "war of wrath" and "the battle of unnumbered tears"


----------



## Bart (Jul 30, 2012)

Read what I said to Parallax, tastin :3

They can't include exactly what's in the _Silmarillion_ because of Christopher Tolkien, so there going to have to use the appendicies of The Lord of the Rings which is a gold mine or even better a treasure trove, as it essentially includes the timeline.

P.S. Cool stuff, Grimmjowsensei and Goob :WOW


----------



## tashtin (Jul 30, 2012)

Shame. Silmarillion is jam packed with epic shit - too good for tv IMO.

I don't remember anything worthwhile in the appendices (nothing that will translate well in movies)

The only thing of note is the akallabeth which is good; has enough content for two movies. I don't think Jackson can do justice to it. It would be worth it if he shows sauron donkey punching eru


----------



## TSC (Jul 30, 2012)

I bet one scene they might explore from silmarillion is the history and origin of the dragons and why Smaug is the last surviving real Dragon.


----------



## Bender (Jul 30, 2012)

The trailer for this flick has me pumped. I have no doubts about seeing me a good ol' flick.


----------



## Parallax (Jul 30, 2012)

Including all that stuff sounds cool in theory but it seems like a really cumbersome and front loaded idea.  I don't know I'm not convinced that it's the way to go


----------



## Parallax (Jul 30, 2012)

my main concern really is how they plan to translate what is essentially a historical text into film and then shoehorn it into the story of the Hobbit, that really seems silly and inadiquate to do


----------



## Bender (Jul 30, 2012)

Parallax said:


> my main concern really is how they plan to translate what is essentially a historical text into film and then shoehorn it into the story of the Hobbit, that really seems silly and inadiquate to do



I haven't read the hobbit buuut was Saruman's story really put into it? Seems like his casting was done by PJ to make amends for not putting Christopher Lee in the general Return of the king and only in extended edition.


----------



## Kuya (Jul 30, 2012)

holy shit 3 movies?


----------



## Emperor Joker (Jul 30, 2012)

Bender said:


> I haven't read the hobbit buuut was Saruman's story really put into it? Seems like his casting was done by PJ to make amends for not putting Christopher Lee in the general Return of the king and only in extended edition.



Well he was apart of the battle against the Necromancer/Sauron...which happened completely off screen in the book and the reason why Gandalf left the Dwarves and Bilbo in the first place.


----------



## Bender (Jul 30, 2012)

^

Oh well phew, thank goodness. Hopefully, Peter Jackson doesn't fuck up the whole bout between Gandalf and Saruman against Sauron/The necromancer like he did Gandalf vs the witch king.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jul 31, 2012)

tashtin said:


> Shame. Silmarillion is jam packed with epic shit - too good for tv IMO.



Yeah but too many characters and stories. And it covers a time span of thousands of years.

I am pretty sure it can't be done in a movie. At least not a trilogy. Maybe like harry potter ? 6-10 movies or so ? But then the actors will grow old and shit. it is risky.

a TV series is the best option imo. Something like "game of thrones" can do it some justice.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Jul 31, 2012)

Bart said:


> Read what I said to Parallax, tastin :3
> 
> They can't include exactly what's in the _Silmarillion_ because of Christopher Tolkien, so there going to have to use the appendicies of The Lord of the Rings which is a gold mine or even better a treasure trove, as it essentially includes the timeline.
> 
> P.S. Cool stuff, Grimmjowsensei and Goob :WOW



Why can't they work with it because of CT?


----------



## TetraVaal (Jul 31, 2012)

Peter Jackson is starting to come down with George Lucas syndrome.


----------



## αshɘs (Jul 31, 2012)

Or Cameron. But instead of the Avatar business he's in the LOTR business.


----------



## tashtin (Aug 5, 2012)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> I am pretty sure it can't be done in a movie. At least not a trilogy. Maybe like harry potter ? 6-10 movies or so ? But then the actors will grow old and shit. it is risky.
> 
> a TV series is the best option imo. Something like "game of thrones" can do it some justice.



works as grandiose as the Silmarillion would never translate well on tv. I've never seen game of thrones but I'm using the adaptations of terry practchetts work as an example. It would not be as epic.

it would require a greater body of work to cover the entirety of the silmarillion than HP. Individual stories such as "the children of hurin" can be done in three films and it has more badass moments than the Lotr.


----------



## TetraVaal (Sep 19, 2012)

New trailer.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Sep 19, 2012)

TetraVaal said:


> New trailer.


----------



## TetraVaal (Sep 19, 2012)

That's because the trailers are all presented in 24fps.

The people who complained about the footage were those who saw it in 48fps.


----------



## Yasha (Sep 19, 2012)

The resolution is amazing, but is it just me or does the framerate seem a bit too fast?


----------



## TetraVaal (Sep 19, 2012)

Nope. The framerate is still at 24fps. You just have really shitty eyesight.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Sep 19, 2012)

TetraVaal said:


> That's because the trailers are all presented in 24fps.
> 
> The people who complained about the footage were those who saw it in 48fps.



Is that something to complain about though? I mean I doubt we're going to see 'Final Fantasy' meets The Hobbit on steroids.

Guess I'll just have to wait until November.


----------



## TetraVaal (Sep 19, 2012)

Tekkenman11 said:


> Is that something to complain about though? I mean I doubt we're going to see 'Final Fantasy' meets The Hobbit on steroids.
> 
> Guess I'll just have to wait until November.



It's all up to the viewer, really.

I was initially for 48fps--but then I realized that in some cases, it will make practical sets and prosthetics look fake, so that is an issue. However, for those who complain about it looking like a soap opera--or the picture quality of HDTVs with motion interpolation scripts--they're pretty much talking out of their ass. While there is a bit of hyperrealism to 48/60fps, it also has an advantage with eliminating motion artifacts and motion blur during swift panning shots.


----------



## Tekkenman11 (Sep 19, 2012)

TetraVaal said:


> It's all up to the viewer, really.
> 
> I was initially for 48fps--but then I realized that in some cases, it will make practical sets and prosthetics look fake, so that is an issue. However, for those who complain about it looking like a soap opera--or the picture quality of HDTVs with motion interpolation scripts--they're pretty much talking out of their ass. While there is a bit of hyperrealism to 48/60fps, it also has an advantage with eliminating motion artifacts and motion blur during swift panning shots.



While some of the background and props will seem fake, it kind of serves to solidify our transitions as viewers into this fantasy land. I mean the whole film is taking place in another world. This ties into my statement earlier about this being the first film in the LOTR universe that looks like it's actually taking place in it.

I was reading about how motion blur is necessary for a film on this grand scale, but honestly I could care less. Did Avatar really have much of that going on? I couldn't tell, but it looked great so if that's any indication of what this film might-sort-of-look-like by eliminating effects seen in lower fps films then I'm all for it.


----------



## dream (Sep 19, 2012)

Loved some of the landscapes in the trailer, Red Epic is an amazing camera.


----------



## αshɘs (Sep 19, 2012)

Even if that trailer was in higher fps iirc youtube only supports up to 30 fps.



Tekkenman11 said:


> While some of the background and props will seem fake, it kind of serves to solidify our transitions as viewers into this fantasy land. I mean the whole film is taking place in another world. This ties into my statement earlier about this being the first film in the LOTR universe that looks like it's actually taking place in it.



No, the issue people had with it was it looking too real. For ex "The sets and makeups look like sets and makeup, there's no illusion, it takes you out of the movie".


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Sep 19, 2012)

Pretty cool although I am not so excited of a trilogy.


----------



## Parallax (Sep 19, 2012)

Which I've always thought was a legitimate problem when concerning faster framerates.  Still it looks great and the RED camera hasn't been shown to have that problem.  I mean it's not like the final product is gonna look like a film set and fake.


----------



## dream (Sep 19, 2012)

GaaraoftheDesert1 said:


> Pretty cool although I am not so excited of a trilogy.



This, I would have preferred for it to only be two movies at most.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 19, 2012)

Nice trailer, can't wait to see it.


----------



## Kuwabara99 (Sep 20, 2012)

awesome new trailer!

the old dude with the big beard handling an animal is obvious.    Radagast The Brown


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Sep 21, 2012)

Is it Radagast or Beorn?


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 21, 2012)

Very fantastical looking so I'm liking it. 3 films though, Jackson we don't need another Lucas on our hands.


----------



## dream (Sep 21, 2012)

Ennoea 

Now you've made me really worry about these three movies.


----------



## Bart (Sep 21, 2012)

Dragonus Nesha said:


> Is it Radagast or Beorn?



It's Radagast ;3

I'm sure you saw the spider try to break through his home in _Rhosgobel_.

Also no one's posted this so take a look,

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZKdRLS1fk4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 21, 2012)

> Now you've made me really worry about these three movies.



The first two should be fine, it's the third one that you should worry about.


----------



## Bart (Sep 21, 2012)

How so, Ennoea?


----------



## Velocity (Sep 21, 2012)

I updated the thread title. It's more accurate now.


----------



## In Brightest Day! (Sep 21, 2012)

When was it announced the Hobbit was going to be a trilogy?!? I thought it was only going to have two parts.


----------



## Nightblade (Sep 22, 2012)

oh my gosh this trilogy is going to suck liek Star Wars prequels. Pita Jackson is the new LIUKAAAAAAAAAAS?!!!111!1!

what is this shit? 
the 1st movie isn't even out yet.


----------



## Bart (Sep 22, 2012)

Velocity said:


> I updated the thread title. It's more accurate now.



Well I was gonna suggest _ + [II] + [III] ;(

But I need to PM you something about my OP btw 

Also to everyone who read this, any troll or silly comments, like Nightblade's for example are getting deleted._


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 24, 2012)

In Brightest Day! said:


> When was it announced the Hobbit was going to be a trilogy?!? I thought it was only going to have two parts.



Like...fucking forever ago, man.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 24, 2012)

Seems the "teaser" poster hasn't been shared here from what I can see.

Here you go:


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 24, 2012)

Bender said:


> I haven't read the hobbit buuut was Saruman's story really put into it? Seems like his casting was done by PJ to make amends for not putting Christopher Lee in the general Return of the king and only in extended edition.



The White Council vs. Necromancer stuff is all pure Tolkien. It just wasn't in the Hobbit. It happened "off screen" during the same time period. There are several points during the Hobbit book where Gandalf leaves for extended periods. This is the added content, but it's not all made up by New Line. It appears in Unfinished Tales and in Tolkien's notes, although Christopher Tolkien filled in a lot of it in the way he assumed J.R.R. intended.


----------



## Bart (Nov 13, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJwyW9ngLNg&feature=related[/YOUTUBE]

*The Fellowship of the Ring*
_May it Be_

*The Two Towers*
_Gollum's Song_

*The Return of the King*
_Into the West

*An Unexpected Journey*
Song of the Lonely Mountain_

*The Desolation of Smaug*
_N/A_

*There and Back Again*
_N/A_

By the way, 'Dreaming of Bag End' is utterly amazing and should be a contender for the best piece of music in the LOTR/Hobbit films alongside even _'The Breaking of the Fellowship'_.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 13, 2012)

Nightblade said:


> oh my gosh this trilogy is going to suck liek Star Wars prequels. Pita Jackson is the new LIUKAAAAAAAAAAS?!!!111!1!
> 
> what is this shit?
> the 1st movie isn't even out yet.



This.

I don't know why everyone is so skeptical. This actually seems very promising.

I was hoping that one of the movies would be about Saurons rise and fall....and that epic battle in the beginning of fellowship. lol. Maybe after these.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Nov 15, 2012)

Oh come on they caught on and blocked that song in America. 



Sennin of Hardwork said:


> Seems the "teaser" poster hasn't been shared here from what I can see.
> 
> Here you go:



Spin-off of the Aragorn poster from Return of the King. Not surprised. 



heavy_rasengan said:


> This.
> 
> I don't know why everyone is so skeptical. This actually seems very promising.
> 
> *I was hoping that one of the movies would be about Saurons rise and fall....and that epic battle in the beginning of fellowship.* lol. Maybe after these.



I was hoping for the same.

I think people are skeptical over the amount of non-canon material (and characters) that we are going to get, as well as the fact that it's become a trilogy and the tone of the movies doesn't look like it's going to match the tone of the books very much.

I'm psyched for the movies, but I'm not really seeing them as The Hobbit. More like a spin-off.


----------



## Ruthie512 (Nov 15, 2012)

Is it true Christopher Lee will be voicing Smaug?


----------



## Yoshi-Paperfold (Nov 22, 2012)

*Leaked Images of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Art & Design Book*

 <--Images of Trolls, Wargs and Goblins.

Tolkiendrim.com <--Characters, Creatures, Settings, Etc.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 23, 2012)

Ruthie512 said:


> Is it true Christopher Lee will be voicing Smaug?



No. It isn't. He expressed interest in that early on because he assumed Saruman would not appear.

Mr. Benedict Cumberbatch will be portraying both Smaug via voice and motion capture, and the same for the Necromancer of Mirkwood, another CGI creation.


----------



## Stunna (Nov 23, 2012)

I was going to see this midnight premiere but turns out exams fall on the same day as release.


----------



## Ennoea (Nov 23, 2012)

They're showing the original trilogy at my local Imax, wondering if I should go. I will be watching the Hobbit at the Imax though, and 3d. I hope there are no annoying Jackson fanboys though.


----------



## Stunna (Nov 23, 2012)

Surely there's bound to be.

Should still go.


----------



## アストロ (Nov 30, 2012)

Cannot wait until Dec. 13th. It comes one day earlier here. Going to watch in 3-D. Peter Jackson specifically used camera RED in order to make the audience viewers experience it as if they're part of the film :33 Two weeks from now :33


----------



## synthax (Dec 3, 2012)

The reviews are coming in did not know it premiered in New Zealand lucky for them.


----------



## dream (Dec 3, 2012)

> The new Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is causing some unexpected reaction.
> 
> Some in the audience for the New Zealand premiere last week are reporting that the high-speed cinematography is not good for the stomach or the head.
> 
> ...





Ugh, I hope that I won't have any problems with 48fps.


----------



## αce (Dec 3, 2012)

> And with the 3D it doesn't come out at you, but rather takes you inside."



MY BODY IS FUCKING READY.


----------



## Bleach (Dec 3, 2012)

Solaris said:


> Ugh, I hope that I won't have any problems with 48fps.



You and me both. I saw the comparison between 20fps and 48fps and I think I can get a feel for what people were talking about. I hope it just depends on the person and does't happen for everyone


----------



## dream (Dec 3, 2012)

Do you have a link to the comparison?


----------



## アストロ (Dec 4, 2012)

I'm hoping that the viewing-experience differs by the individual movie goer as people have said. I don't think Jackson would make the mistake of trying to make the entire cinematic feel a surreal eye-trip. I don't know, I'm hoping this will be good.


----------



## Bleach (Dec 4, 2012)

Solaris said:


> Do you have a link to the comparison?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 4, 2012)

Can't watch 3D movies without getting really dizzy.



Stunna said:


> I was going to see this midnight premiere but turns out exams fall on the same day as release.



My final day of classes is the 13th, and I have classes until 10 PM about an hour away from the theater. I'm going to skip (otherwise I won't get to the theater in time to get a good seat). I'll tell my profs and they'll just have to deal with it. Knowing my late-class professor he may skip class that day, anyway.

Have cloak ready.


----------



## dream (Dec 4, 2012)

Ugh, the links aren't working.  The first one has a zip containing a document saying that the video was removed for bandwidth reasons.  The second just doesn't work.


----------



## アストロ (Dec 4, 2012)

It's still going to be a good movie


----------



## Les Mis?rables (Dec 4, 2012)

24FPS:


48FPS:


----------



## Bart (Dec 4, 2012)

Ooooo I'm finally posting here again; my amazing thread ;3

Early reviews, so try not to take too much notice, especially as they've only been at least twenty reviews released, added to the fact much of the abuse has be targetted at the 48FS rather than the actual film.

Just not sure whether to watch it in IMAX or IMAX 3D ;S


----------



## αshɘs (Dec 4, 2012)

Too bad hfr is only for 3D


----------



## Parallax (Dec 4, 2012)

I actually do not like the way faster framerates look for films, even if it's the FUTURE.  I'll probably just watch the regular version


----------



## dream (Dec 4, 2012)

Magic Carpet said:


> 24FPS:
> 
> 
> 48FPS:



Yeah, it's going to take a bit to get used to.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 4, 2012)

the problem that I've always had with it is that it looks fake, like it doesn't even feel "real" or "immersive" which is what the intended effect is, it does the complete opposite for me.  Maybe I just have bad eyes or something.


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 4, 2012)

Was really, really disappointed. There isn't' any chemistry between actors, no sense of wonder or size thanx to 48 fps. All feels fake and sound stage-y. Everything is patted as hell and the added hollywood level comedy that was only slightly ruining the LOTR adaptation fucking annoys the hell out of you here. Just to think that this will be a trilogy is already appalling. This should have been just 1 three hour long movie.

This movie's number 1 problem - it tries too hard. Almost as if a different director was given a task to make a movie that's like the original trilogy. Yet it's made by Jackson. Maybe that actually makes more sense.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 4, 2012)

Para is a Luddite.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 4, 2012)

People hated colour too. And sound. People always whine.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 9, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> Was really, really disappointed. *There isn't' any chemistry between actors*, *no sense of wonder or size thanx to 48 fps.* All feels *fake and sound stage-y*. Everything is *patted as hell* and the added *hollywood level comedy* that was only slightly ruining the LOTR adaptation fucking annoys the hell out of you here. Just to think that this will be a trilogy is already appalling. *This should have been just 1 three hour long movie.*
> 
> This movie's number 1 problem - it tries too hard. Almost as if a different director was given a task to make a movie that's like the original trilogy. Yet it's made by Jackson. Maybe that actually makes more sense.



Did you see it somehow or are you basing this off of the trailers!?

Because you are seriously confirming almost every single fear I have for this movie. I was already worried about padding, chemistry, staginess, bad humor, and general movie tone. Now I'm wondering if I'm not over-reacting.


----------



## dream (Dec 9, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> Did you see it somehow or are you basing this off of the trailers!?
> 
> Because you are seriously confirming almost every single fear I have for this movie. I was already worried about padding, chemistry, staginess, bad humor, and general movie tone. Now I'm wondering if I'm not over-reacting.



Hati hasn't seen the movie.


----------



## Whimsy (Dec 9, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> People hated colour too. And sound. People always whine.



In that gif comparison the 48fps really does look shitty though


----------



## Hatifnatten (Dec 9, 2012)

Solaris said:


> Hati hasn't seen the movie.


Err... yes I did 
That's why people write what they thought.


----------



## Bart (Dec 9, 2012)

I mean really? Hati ... 

Ooo the Guardian has already posted a review; great times ;3


----------



## Darth (Dec 11, 2012)

My sisters just saw the Press Release and they neither told me about it or invited me to go along with them like they could have. 

I mean, they invite me to see Breaking Dawn Part II's Press Release but not The Hobbits? Wtf. If the LOTR movie posters on my walls don't point out that I'm a goddamn fan what does?

WHERE DO I GO WRONG?


----------



## dream (Dec 11, 2012)

Darth said:


> My sisters just saw the Press Release and they neither told me about it or invited me to go along with them like they could have.
> 
> I mean, they invite me to see Breaking Dawn Part II's Press Release but not The Hobbits? Wtf. If the LOTR movie posters on my walls don't point out that I'm a goddamn fan what does?
> 
> WHERE DO I GO WRONG?



This is revenge for not liking Breaking Dawn Part II?


----------



## Grape (Dec 11, 2012)

Parallax said:


> the problem that I've always had with it is that it looks fake, like it doesn't even feel "real" or "immersive" which is what the intended effect is, it does the complete opposite for me.  Maybe I just have bad eyes or something.




No, it's because your brain doesn't require the extra frames. Lower frame rates produce more fluidity, because they present your brain with realism. They reproduce motion as if you were watching something happen in first person. 


I think they have a place in film, but they should be used with extreme caution. For example, 2001 would have been the most perfect place to use them, because of the films atmosphere. Not the entire film, but portions of it in 48fps would be even more brilliant.


----------



## Laura (Dec 11, 2012)

I watched it last night! 


I wrote a film review if you want to check it out.


----------



## Gabe (Dec 11, 2012)

probably gonna watch it on Saturday after work if it is not sold out. last weekend they had a marathon showing all 3 movies thought about seeing them. it was only $15 but i dont have the patience to sit in the theater for 755 minutes straight like when i was younger.


----------



## Laura (Dec 12, 2012)

Lol didn't they have intermissions?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 13, 2012)

> Didn't sleep today because of term papers.

> Doesn't sleep tonight because of term papers.

> Won't sleep tomorrow during the day because of school.


The 48 FPS is going to be a total mindfuck for me come tomorrow night.


----------



## Laura (Dec 13, 2012)

It's not really that different, it's kind of like watching a 1080p movie on a small computer screen. I think halfway between 48 fps and the norm would be better.


----------



## Kuwabara99 (Dec 13, 2012)

Just got back from screening the regular version from the theater I work at.   
all I can say is......FREAKING EPIC


----------



## AsunA (Dec 13, 2012)

I've seen it in IMAX 3D HFR. Paid €14,50 for it and when it ended, I didn't really know what to think of it. Disappointment came an hour later when I realised there was another 2 films coming up in the same format. HFR is overrated. Not to whine or anything, but I think th?t was the thing that ruined the Hobbit the most for me. Ow, that and the incredible slow pace of the story. I was actually wondering the whole movie if the Dwarfs were real or not.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 13, 2012)

Hatifnatten said:


> Was really, really disappointed. There isn't' any chemistry between actors, no sense of wonder or size thanx to 48 fps. All feels fake and sound stage-y. Everything is patted as hell and the added hollywood level comedy that was only slightly ruining the LOTR adaptation fucking annoys the hell out of you here. Just to think that this will be a trilogy is already appalling. This should have been just 1 three hour long movie.
> 
> This movie's number 1 problem - it tries too hard. Almost as if a different director was given a task to make a movie that's like the original trilogy. Yet it's made by Jackson. Maybe that actually makes more sense.



Its exactly the same as Peter Jackson's first 3 LOTR movies then?

Doh bummer -- but as expected of Peter Jackson san.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 13, 2012)

Its already out in my country, but I'm busy this weekend so I'll try to go see it next week or maybe Sunday night.

But this just came out and while not Hobbit related, it looks funny. XD


----------



## Nimander (Dec 13, 2012)

I thought this was supposed to be a duology? But it's a trilogy?  Why the actual fuck would they do that, beyond wanting to milk the franchise for all it's worth?


----------



## Liverbird (Dec 13, 2012)




----------



## Kuwabara99 (Dec 13, 2012)

Nimander said:


> I thought this was supposed to be a duology? But it's a trilogy?  Why the actual fuck would they do that, beyond wanting to milk the franchise for all it's worth?



yep.  was supposed to be:  Hobbit,  White Council 

they released info on the trilogy about half a year ago or so


----------



## Nimander (Dec 13, 2012)

Ugh. Well, I really didn't/don't have that much interest in seeing this anyway. It'll make a good rental come springtime. But it's not worth dropping $8-$11 at the theater for me.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 13, 2012)

Needs moar hobbit-y chics.

:WOW


----------



## tashtin (Dec 13, 2012)

Just got back from watching this - and it is nothing short of spectacular. The 48FPS is jarring in the beginning but it truly is the future. Stunning.


----------



## Aruarian (Dec 13, 2012)

Most of the whining about HFR is 'because it's different'.


----------



## Kuya (Dec 13, 2012)

damnit i didn't know it the 48fps was only in select theaters. there's only theater on my island playing it and it's the "2nd" best theater on Oahu so i originally bought tickets at the "best" theatre for tonight's midnight premiere.

hopefully ill love the regular version enough that ill go see the 48fps next week


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 13, 2012)

Im concerned about the lukewarm reviews......Usually Im dismissive of critics, but "The Hobbit" is usually the kind of adventure movie they go for.


----------



## Laura (Dec 13, 2012)

Well it was a little cheesy, but still good. I think the LotR trilogy left people expecting too much.


----------



## AsunA (Dec 13, 2012)

Hangat?r said:


> Most of the whining about HFR is 'because it's different'.



It's different, because the film-effect is pretty much gone. I have to admit that it's truly stunning to see everything smooth and sharp at such a big screen (IMAX), but something about it ticks me off. That's why I quite dislike Samsung TVs, there's something about the movements that should make it 'natural' makes it quite unnatural to look at. The colours maybe? IDK, the next two movies will be just 3D for me.


----------



## tashtin (Dec 13, 2012)

Kuya said:


> hopefully ill love the regular version enough that ill go see the 48fps next week



See it in 48fps. The scenic shots/ set pieces are truly breathtaking. there aren't enough superlatives to describe the cinematography and the 48fps enhances it tenfold.



MartialHorror said:


> Im concerned about the lukewarm reviews......Usually Im dismissive of critics, but "The Hobbit" is usually the kind of adventure movie they go for.



Depends. If you're a fan of tolkiens work. if you are - you will love it. If you're a neutral then mostly likely you will find it tedious (at times) and some scenes overplayed.


----------



## Jeαnne (Dec 13, 2012)

the reviews have me worried


----------



## Jon Snow (Dec 13, 2012)

Why do you care what a dead 40 year old thinks?


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 14, 2012)

I shall be seeing the first film on Saturday, and I am very excited about it! I am a great fan of Tolkien, and I do expect this film to be as epic as where _The Lord of the Rings_ films.

However, I wonder: why did the film makers adapt _The Hobbit_ after _The Lord of Rings,_ when _The Hobbit_ is set before _LotR_ and was also written first? Was _LotR_ more popular? And why is the book being divided into three films? It is shorter by far than the _Lord of the Rings_ trilogy, so has less content; did the film makers wish to ensure that no aspect of the book was lost or compressed?

I do sincerely hope that the film retains the dialogue between Bilbo and Gandalf when they first meet:





The Hobbit said:


> "Good morning!" said Bilbo, and he meant it. The sun was shining, and the grass was very green. But Gandalf looked at him from under long bushy eyebrows that stuck out farther than the brim of his shady hat.
> 
> "What do you mean?" he said. "Do you wish me a good morning, or mean that it is a good morning whether I want it or not; or that you feel good this morning; or that it is a morning to be good on?"
> "All of them at once," said Bilbo.


That is such a hilarious exchange! 

And I also hope that the riddles between Bilbo and Gollum are retained; since they are such an essential part of the story, I do expect them to e fully adapted.

Overall, I am very excited, and shall be seeing this film on the weekend, so I shall post my thoughts about it, then.


----------



## アストロ (Dec 14, 2012)

Yes the reviews are worrying me deeply... *sigh*


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 14, 2012)

Simply amazing....Jackson has done it again. While I wouldn't it put in on par with Lord of the Rings, this is an epic nonetheless. The 3D was spectacular beyond belief (i loved the new glasses) and the 48FR made it even better. It was like viewing a real event unfold in front of your very eyes. The best part of it all was the soundtrack and how it amplified the emotional parts of the movie. Ahh I have to see it again.



> That is such a hilarious exchange!
> 
> And I also hope that the riddles between Bilbo and Gollum are retained; since they are such an essential part of the story, I do expect them to e fully adapted.
> 
> Overall, I am very excited, and shall be seeing this film on the weekend, so I shall post my thoughts about it, then.



Haha you will get exactly what you expect.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 14, 2012)

Just got back. Was pleasantly surprised with the movie, in part because I had very low expectations.

Going to get this out of the way now though before talking about the movie, seeing as it's what half the posts in here are really about.

The 48FPS was too much. The entire opening scene was ruined while my eyes adjusted. In every scene with water I was distracted by the droplets. The fight scenes were overwhelming and if you stopped paying attention for more than a second, you'd be lost for another ten. That said, it definitely isn't good for people who have certain medical conditions involving visual sensitivities. 

The actual movie:


*Spoiler*: __ 




As I said earlier, it was better than I expected, though I kept my expectations low. Which meant I was psyched when we actually saw parts of Smaug in the beginning and at the very end. 

Bilbo was fantastic. Freeman really nailed him. I really don't have much to say about the other characters though. Gandalf was good as always, and the same with Gollum. The dwarves were for the most part just a rabble, the only ones getting any attention other than Balin being Thorin, Fili, and Kili. Who were all, conveniently, the more attractive actors who mysteriously lacked big dwarf noses and crazy dwarven hairstyles. No alternate agenda there.

The humor in the movie was very awkward. The book was, while not exactly light-hearted, pretty light in tone overall. The movies took on an epic tone, and in an attempt to balance that out, it seems like they shoved in a lot of jokes and one-liners. Problem is, most of them were terribly cheesy humor and didn't come off well. A few moments were great (like when Gandalf was "talking" to Galadriel and finally Saruman was like "I FEEL LIKE I'M TALKING TO MYSELF HERE", and a lot of Bilbo's jokes), but overall most everything else kind of made me cringe. Radagast the Brown was a complete mess. I felt like I'd walked into a different movie theater for that scene. Surprisingly, they more or less skipped over all the Bombur jokes that were in the book. There go all the fat jokes.

There were also just some weird moments like the storm giants. Maybe it was just because there was a preview for Pacific Rim right before the movie, but I laughed my ass off through that whole scene. 

As for the plot itself, it was...interesting. Jackson managed to meld the plotlines together better than anticipated, though it was still very obvious that he threw a couple of stories together and forced them all to run (sort of) smoothly. And again, tone was an issue. You could really tell the difference between what was originally in the book, and what was a short blurb written by Tolkien that Jackson ran with. 

He also definitely tried to Aragorn-ize Thorin, and it got to the point where he was really undermining Bilbo as the hero in places. Not cool.

Music was great, as usual, though it got to be a bit repetitive. It was more or less a repeat of the LotR soundtrack, with a slight twist. A twist that didn't change much at all in the whole movie. 

All in all, satisfied. Below LotR, but above my expectations. I'd give it a 7 or so out of 10.




The key is to go into it not expecting much, and certainly not expecting 'The Hobbit'.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 14, 2012)

Hobbit triology, what a bullshit name.

There is a lot of greed behind this movie. Bad greed.


----------



## Laura (Dec 14, 2012)

I like it, it means more movies to watch.


----------



## martryn (Dec 14, 2012)

> There is a lot of greed behind this movie. Bad greed.



If we get this instead of more trash like fucking Transformer movies or another bullshit superhero flick, then I welcome it.

What I find annoying is that there is one thread for all three films.

I'd rank the movie really high, personally.  There were several things that I thought were a bit over-the-top, and they took some licenses with the story that absolute purists will hate, but I think the general gist of the film is fantastic, and the writers (Jackson, Walsh, etc) managed to piece together some great backstory stuff from things that are referred to in the book but not elaborated much on.


----------



## Nightblade (Dec 14, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> That said, it definitely isn't good for people who have certain medical conditions involving visual sensitivities.


welp, guess I won't be watching this movie.


thanks a lot Peter 48 fucking piece of shit Jackson.


----------



## Laura (Dec 14, 2012)

Lol it's fine to watch, pikacheeka is just weird.


----------



## martryn (Dec 14, 2012)

I didn't even notice it.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 14, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> Just got back. Was pleasantly surprised with the movie, in part because I had very low expectations.
> 
> Going to get this out of the way now though before talking about the movie, seeing as it's what half the posts in here are really about.
> 
> ...



I would have to disagree with you on many parts. For one, the 48FR made the movie look and feel amazing especially in accordance with the 3D. The actions scenes in this frame rate was EXHILARATING.


*Spoiler*: __ 



I enjoyed the comedy greatly. Especially in the beginning (the exchange between Gandalf and Bilbo and the entrance of the dwarves into his home.)

Why was the storm giants "weird"?. They were in the book by the way so its not like it came out of no where and the scene was a cinematic beauty that not only tingled your senses but put you in Bilbos mind state of there being a whole new world outside of his home. I loved the fact that it incorporated the music from the Lord of the Rings as I found its soundtrack to be flawless. The scene where the dwarves were singing in Bilbos home gave me chills, thats how epic it was.  

As for Radergast, I agree with you, he was majorly disappointing. 

"The key is to go into it not expecting much, and certainly not expecting 'The Hobbit'."

I don't understand this at all. Have you read the book? Almost every ounce of detail from the book was in this movie.

EDIT

and oh yeah my favorite part of the movie was when Bilbo was about to kill Gollum and then he remembered what Gandalf told him; "'True courage is not about knowing when to take a life, but when to spare one" Ahh all the emotions that hit me in this scene (due to the fact that I knew what his decision would lead to). 




I can't wait for the next one. Thank you Jackson for making this a trilogy, as I enjoy every minute of being in Middle-Earth.


----------



## Violent-nin (Dec 14, 2012)

Plan to see it tonight, going into it not expecting to like it as much as LOTR so I'm sure it will be a good film overall.


----------



## Psychic (Dec 14, 2012)

hmmmmmmm.....to see it or not to see it? Or just to go check out the cute guy that works at the theater...decisions, decisions.


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 14, 2012)

Four Stars no major problems whatsoever, can't wait for the next one.

Those rabbits going so fast was good stuff.


----------



## Violent by Design (Dec 14, 2012)

Nightblade said:


> welp, guess I won't be watching this movie.
> 
> 
> thanks a lot Peter 48 fucking piece of shit Jackson.



lol what, what medical condition can you have where you can't watch a movie at 48 FPS? 

48 fps makes no difference, only reason why it looks strange is because people are used too lower FPS. the eye can process 48 fps just fine.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 14, 2012)

Loads of stuff in this that wasn't in the book. Really this whole thing should have been 1 3 hour movie max. Way too much useless filler here.

In particular making the albino orc so seminal shows how desperate Jackson is for an identifiable villain, a weakness in all of Tolkeins books.

That being said it was a decent movie. Would have been quite good if it was 1 movie.


----------



## "Shion" (Dec 14, 2012)

Psychic said:


> hmmmmmmm.....to see it or not to see it? Or just to go check out the cute guy that works at the theater...decisions, decisions.



He doesn't give a shit about you, so go watch the movie.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 14, 2012)

The more I see the hobbit trailers the less I want to see the movie.


----------



## Darth (Dec 14, 2012)

Guriko of Suzuran said:


> The more I see the hobbit trailers the less I want to see the movie.



Don't let the trailers dissuade you. Just saw it tonight, and while it isn't up to par with the LotR Trilogy, it's still a great movie. 

Music sounded a bit off at times. The new Dwarven theme was pretty catchy though. Sir Ian did a fantastic job at replaying his character. And although Cate Blanchett only had a short scene, I loved seeing her in it. 

Wish there was more Elrond though.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 14, 2012)

heavy_rasengan said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Disagreement and agreement.


*Spoiler*: __ 



I explained why the storm giants were weird.  

And of course I have read the book, as well as most of Tolkien's works. I said don't expect The Hobbit because the movie is not The Hobbit. Does the book have a massive subplot about Thorin seeking to avenge his grandfather against an albino orc?

That was actually my favorite part of the movie, too. Total throwback to the part in LotR when Gandalf told Frodo that it was pity that stayed Bilbo's hand after Frodo said it was a pity Bilbo hadn't just killed Gollum. I thought it was handled very well.






Megaharrison said:


> Loads of stuff in this that wasn't in the book. Really this whole thing should have been 1 3 hour movie max. Way too much useless filler here.
> 
> In particular making the albino orc so seminal shows how desperate Jackson is for an identifiable villain, a weakness in all of Tolkeins books.
> 
> That being said it was a decent movie. Would have been quite good if it was 1 movie.



Agreed on the pale orc thing. I went with a friend who had never read The Hobbit and even she made a comment about how it seemed like that whole subplot was written by a different person.



And in regards to my medical comment, seeing as people are over-reacting, PM me if you're really concerned.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 14, 2012)

I think the length and amount of "filler" (which it isn't in the grand scheme of things) will play out a lot better when all three films are compiled and completed.  Maybe.  I hope.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 14, 2012)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJwyW9ngLNg[/YOUTUBE]

who else loved this?


----------



## Psychic (Dec 14, 2012)

"Shion" said:


> He doesn't give a shit about you, so go watch the movie.



​


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 14, 2012)

I guess it's because I did not read any of the books(nor do I plan to) but what's the problem with fillers its a movie which is meant to entertain. if I am entertained I don't care if 90 percent of the movie is filler, and I can say I was not bored at any part of the movie.


----------



## The Weeknd (Dec 14, 2012)

Hobbit:

Oh God. I wanted to love this movie. I wanted to like it so bad. 

It failed.

48 frames per second makes the CGI look bad. The characters go through extremely unlikely events that they survived even for a freaking fantasy movie. The 3D wasn't needed even though it was a must for a movie with so much scenery. 

48 frames per second also made the movie seem like it's something it's not, once you see it you'll realize it. 

It was also a kids movie, no doubt.

The first hour could have been cut short, half the movie was a build-up to something that is sub-par to what it is trying to build. 

Overall the movie is okay.

7/10


----------



## Darc (Dec 15, 2012)

Fellow movie goers, fans of the cinema, casual film seers, I must strongly advise that you skip The Hobbit. Geared towards children and comprised almost entirely of filler, it solidifies itself as one of the most disappointing and unnecessary movies ever made. And if you value your eyes do NOT watch the 48 frames per second version of it. It's the worst thing to happen to the movies since, well, 3D.


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2012)

48 fps isn't too bad in the movie or at least it isn't once you get used to it.  The beginning was just horrendously weird with it seeming that the movie was on fast forward a bit but by the end none of the movements felt unnatural or weird.  One day this will probably be seen as a good change to movies.


----------



## Violent-nin (Dec 15, 2012)

TittyNipple said:


> Hobbit:
> 
> Oh God. I wanted to love this movie. I wanted to like it so bad.
> 
> ...



Pretty much agree with this. 

I regret watching it in 3D.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 15, 2012)

The scene with Golum is pretty great. If you're expecting The LOTR though, prepare to be disappointed.

I didn't see the 48fps version thankfully.


----------



## Psyconorikan (Dec 15, 2012)

Meh. 6/10

Never read the book so I don't know what was filler, but god they should have shortened it. It was honestly getting tiring watching: FIGHT RUN FIGHT RUN FIGHT RUN. I can see two movies for the length of this book, but three?


----------



## TylerDurden (Dec 15, 2012)

The Hobbit : An Unexpected Journey Brief Review

AMAZING. It seemed that i lowered my expectations too much. I'm not one to pay heed to the critics' valuations of a quality of a feature by a media of entertainment or anything (normally summarized in scores on Metacritic and RT), but i gotta admit it was jaw-dropping looking' how panned and lambasted this was compared with LOTR trilogy (which was universally acclaimed)...but boy, was i happily mistaken and my predictions denied..

Let me emphasize this. THIS MOVIE IS JUST AS GOOD AS LOTR. I don't know if these purists/cynics griped that it didn't stay true to the book or what, but i watched it with a friend who read the novel (and is a big fan of the Tolkien universe in general), and he said there were some fillers but overall they didn't detract him from the experience...i know more about this guy than i do u folks so i trust this guy more...(i may try to pore over the novel, but i've got a final exam comin' soon so i think i'm just gonna trust him....

The first part was a helluva delight, i thought. Gandalf never ceased to impress and the comedy greatly didn't feel too overwhelming despite the grandiose and excessive demeanors of the dwarfs in pretty much everything. The introduction scene was done appropriately without being bogged down by overbloated explanations of each character's traits because the script cleverly gave us closure to them as we witnessed the peregrination....which i thought was a clever idea to save the runtime and to give a sense of interactiveness to the audience (i am one moviegoer who likes to know a character through their courses of action rather than a boisterous narrative....

Martin Freeman was satisfying as Bilbo as his comic timing was perfect. It surprised me a bit he didn't really accommodate the whole screentime (i thought the movie was gonna center around his character), but at least he got to chew some of the best moments of the movie...(his riddle game with Gollum being one of them...it was appropriately awkward and tense without being too sluggish....and despite Bilbo outwitting Gollum, he never came off as this witty genius, which is a good thing, since i never took him for one and it would have been really out-of-place for him to be in the movie if he really was...

Christopher McKellen was brilliant as usual as Gandalf...he chewed the scenery as usual and his conversation with Saruman was probably one of the best parts of the movie (it was interesting seeing their ideas clashed again...)

The Dwarfs were all an interesting bunch...of course the one that stood out was their leader Thorin...i understood his pang..and his need for vengeance was prevalent. His scene with Bilbo at the end was also touching (it wasn't exceptional or anything, but it was the type that always got me....)

All in all, this is within my top three of the year, a worthwhile trip, and it was indeed AN UNEXPECTEDly great JOURNEY....looking forward to the second movie with great confidence.....

9.5/10


----------



## アストロ (Dec 15, 2012)

I'm discouraged by the constructive critique of the films negative sides with the reviews coming in in watching this film. Although I've anticipated great things it really crushes my hopes of walking and leaving the theater satisfied.


----------



## Arakasi (Dec 15, 2012)

Over-indulgent. A classic case where 'less is more' surely applies here, from the drawn out setup to the over use of CGI and what felt like pointless filler scenes, I thought this movie as a whole was quite bloated. A top-notch editor would've made this film fantastic.

Uneven. The tonal shifts that occur throughout the movie are very jarring. We go from adolescent humor to adult themes quite frequently, it's like the movie is bipolar. Is it going to be a lighthearted romp through Middle Earth where we meet mushroom addled wizards or is it going to be about an entire race trying to regain their identity on a long and harsh journey? It can't be both.

Characterizaton and Interplay. The best part of the movie was undoubtedly the three main characters of the story: Bilbo, Thorin, and Gandalf. Bilbo was very enjoyable, I could really empathize with the young hobbit. Thorin conveyed the bad ass persona well. As always Gandalf was amazing, though he did have one too many Deus Ex moments. The scene between Bilbo and Gollum was incredibly well done and easily the best part of the movie.

Overall a disappointing movie that while good, should've been great. 

8/10


----------



## "Shion" (Dec 15, 2012)

heavy_rasengan said:


> [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJwyW9ngLNg[/YOUTUBE]
> 
> who else loved this?



I fucking loved that shit.

Catchy as all hell.



Psychic said:


> ​



Don't care and neither does _he._


----------



## Dr.Douchebag (Dec 15, 2012)

8/10 not a bad movie but you could tell that some parts were really over elaborated on and throughout all I could think was 'you know I'm sure this scene is much shorter in the book (haven't read it) but they need some extra scenes if they are to make 2 more movies' 

What I don't understand is why they couldn't shorten it to 2 hours instead of 2 hrs and 45 mins


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2012)

7/10**


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2012)

I'm glad Jackson is embracing technology with the higher frame rate but I worry the audience won't be able to relate to a film where it's all so medieval. Perhaps some updating the source material could have helped, like showing signs of progress, maybe even some Steam Punk elements.  Would have made it cooler.


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2012)

Ennoea said:


> I'm glad Jackson is embracing technology with the higher frame rate but I worry the audience won't be able to relate to a film where it's all so medieval. Perhaps some updating the source material could have helped, like showing signs of progress, maybe even some Steam Punk elements.  Would have made it cooler.



The sheer amount of potential bitching from LoTRs fans alone is reason enough to not do such a thing.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2012)

But Jackson changed the film alot anyway, look at the response. I just feel if he really added these steam punk elements it would not only help the film visually but also really differentiate it from the LotR series. The film would be able to stand on its own and not be buried under the inevitable shadow of LotR. Just imagine Smaug and Bilbo fighting like the Wild West. Everyone loves cowboys.


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2012)

The changes he made are no where near as radical as the ones you are proposing, fans would be more pissed off then by the ones Jackson made. 

I don't love cowboys.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2012)

Is there any romance in it atleast? Bilbo and Thorin had a great Will they Won't they relationship throughout the book.


----------



## dream (Dec 15, 2012)

No real romance in it though one can see that Galadriel and Gandalf has something once upon a time.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2012)

Gandalf is the player of Middle Earth.


----------



## Lucciola (Dec 15, 2012)

8/10 watched the regular version. Some parts bored me.
+1 for Howard Shore

9/10


----------



## Baks (Dec 15, 2012)

I ain't seen the film yet, but here is some quick questions.

Is Gloin still as grumpy as he was in the book, also he do mention anything about Gimli?

Also is Balin potrayed as Bilbo's best friend like in the books too.

Cuz imo besides Thorin and Bombur, Gloin and Balin where the dwarves with some real personality from the book.


----------



## Opaste (Dec 15, 2012)

In the strongest possible terms, I simply must recommend that everyone goes to see the Hobbit as soon as possible. It's a beautiful, charming and quite wondrous adventure story which despite some minor flaws manages to still be great. It's not quite as good a start to a trilogy as Fellowship of the Ring was, but it's very close. Most people who in any way enjoy the fantasy genre, or are fans Tolkien's Middle-Earth or Jackson's vision of it, will absolutely adore this film.

Since the many strengths of this film have already been talked about in great detail by other people, I will simply comment on few of the common criticisms that have been mentioned often

*The 48 fps*: It's true that the human eye and brain need some time to adjust to this change before it starts to look natural. Some people adjust straight away, for some people it will take longer, and it's quite possible that for some people the 48 fps will always remain to look weird. And this is fair enough, but I think it's very misleading to focus so much criticism on such a technical issue, when most people will most likely be seeing the film in the old 24 fps 2D format. According to the latest information out of the 25 000 screens worldwide showing the Hobbit, only about a 1000 will show it in 48 fps (that's only 4 percent, a very small fraction by anyone's standards). So if you fear the new technology might impede your enjoyment of the film, it's very easy to simply go watch it in the old format, it would be a great mistake to miss the whole film because of such a small issue.

*The pacing*: I admit that the film does have some problems with the pacing, almost all of which are due to the decision to switch from 2 films to 3 very late in the production schedule. Because of this change they felt the need to add a new villain to the story very late in the game, to give this film it's own antagonist, and though it didn't bother me, I can understand why some people felt the character in question seemed somewhat out of place in the story.

By far the most common criticism The Hobbit has drawn are complaints about the first half of the film, which some people have felt was too uneventful and drawn-out. Particularly many have complained that the long "tea-party" in the Bag End was unnecessarily long.

I personally do not in any way share this feeling. To me it seemed very important to give all the characters room to breathe in the beginning, so the viewers can start forming some sort of emotional connection to these dwarves. Since all the 15 members of the quest are introduced to the audience practically at once (with only Bilbo and Galdalf being somewhat familiar to the audience already), it was nice that we really got to see the dwarves just being dwarves, and long enough time was spent in letting the audience just soak in all the different characters.

*The length*: This somewhat ties to the pacing issues, many people have simply complained that the film was too long and should have been much trimmed down. I find this view to be quite perplexing. I have never really understood why some people insist that a film is automatically better if it's shorter. As long as the added scenes are good and make sense to the story, I much prefer to watch a longer version of a good film than a shorter one. Especially in the case of a film like The Hobbit, where even the scenes showing the characters just hanging around and doing nothing in particular are in themselves interesting, due to the fascinating World and places they are set in. I can understand that for people who don't that much care for fantasy, or Middle Earth in particular, the scenes showcasing the fantastic setting and its inhabitants may seem like unwelcome padding, but for those people I suggest that perhaps they should try to adjust their expectations of a fantasy story. I personally would happily watch hours of the dwarves just talking to each other, as long as the characters and the setting are interesting enough. I don't think the film would have been improved in any way by shortening the dwarves' introduction and needlesly rushing the story.

And finally, the complaint about a relatively short book made into a film trilogy. "Stretching" many people have called it. To those people I say: have you ever actually read the book? The book is written in a style that often feels almost rushed, and even seemingly important scenes are often told in only a few paragraphs. Almost none of the dwarves are given any personalities whatsoever, and vital information like where Gandalf often disappears to during their journey is never explained (until the appendixes in Lord of the Rings, which fill in all of the gaps in the story). So even if you take just the basic story of the Hobbit, and add all the necessary parts for a good film version such as distinct personalities and screen time for all the different dwarves, Gandalf's own adventures, the background for the dwarven kingdoms and the dragon, and you very quickly get to a point which is much too long for just one film (which Peter Jackson actually realized very early on in the production). Now, an argument can certainly be made that they should have simply kept it as two films, and that the third one was too much. I do agree that splitting the 2 films into 3 has cause some pacing difficulties and rushed changes in the first film. But still, after watching the finished product I must say that it felt like Jackson made the right decision. I for one am certainly grateful for getting 3 films of the hobbity goodness rather than two.

So in short, everyone should definitely go watch The Hobbit, if the genre interests them even in the slightest. At the very least you get to see an entertaining almost 3 hour fantasy adventure, so it's surely worth your time and money. And many people are going to absolutely love it, and will go see it over and over again. I'm certainly going to.


----------



## Laura (Dec 15, 2012)

Baks said:


> I ain't seen the film yet, but here is some quick questions.
> 
> Is Gloin still as grumpy as he was in the book, also he do mention anything about Gimli?
> 
> ...



Well no one has mentioned Gimli to the best of my knowledge, but there's still another two movies to go.

I can't remember the names of any of them, I'm terrible with names.  But Bilbo is pretty friendly with two of the youngest ones, who may have been brothers.

And if Gloin was the oldest guy with grey hair, then he wasn't grumpy or grouchy at all, pretty much the opposite.

Thorin was really the only grumpy one, and he's a bit OTT with hating elves. He's pretty sour and serious for most of the movie and he doesn't really take part in the merry making.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 15, 2012)

Thorin is an arrogant twerp in the book aswell.


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Dec 15, 2012)

I watched it yesterday and really enjoyed the film. Initially I wondered why people were saying the story was bloated but really, the 'bloat' just comes from a lot of lore/world building of Middle-Earth moments that I guess the casual viewer doesn't really care for. In most Fantasy Book to TV/Film adaptations. These lore bits are usually completely stripped away leaving only the main plot intact (Eg. Game of Thrones) but Peter Jackson kept/added in many of these bits in the film. That's why it feels bloated to some people, but I personally loved all these parts. The only part I felt was bloated in the film was the beginning with Old Bilbo and Frodo. That part felt too long to me and they could have kept it a lot shorter.

I also agree with some bad reviews that some action scenes kind of lack any dramatic tension although they were really really fun to watch. The sequence where the Dwarves escape from the Goblin city was really cool in the sense u feel like you're watching a Fantasy RPG where the good guys fight their way out of a dungeon. Really cool if you're a gamer but lacks tension compared to something like FOTR's Moria sequence.

Anyway, I don't recall if the whole Pale Orc story was ever in The Hobbit but somehow I get a feeling he's going to last all the way to the last film for the


*Spoiler*: __ 



Battle of the Five Armies


 

and basically give Thorin an identifiable antagonist to the end of the trilogy since we no longer have Sauron as the over-arching villain in this story.

One thing I found pretty humorous was that Thorin Oakenshield carried a piece of Oak bark as a Shield on his arm as part of his character design. A definite 'I see what u did there!' moment for sure. I also liked that Gandalf felt a lot more 'wizardish' in this film compared to LOTR since all he really did in the LOTR films was swing his magic flashlight staff around most of the time and now he's cracking giant boulders and setting stuff on fire.


----------



## Fierce (Dec 16, 2012)

I thought the movie was phenomenal. Splitting a 300 page book into a trilogy (of movies that will all likely exceed 2 and a half hours) and the less than phenomenal reviews it's been getting on RT had me really worried, but I thought it was great. 90% of the dialogue was taken straight out of the book, as well as most of the action. There were no significant alterations or omissions that I noticed. What I really liked (besides Radagast, though I understand the purpose he served here) was how they used background material that was only suggestive/vague in the book and made it more pronounced (the business with the necromancer). 

There was no excess of pointless filler (also at the expense of canon material) like in the abominable Harry Potter movies. The one thing in the whole movie that really made me wince was when 
*Spoiler*: __ 



The Great Goblin says to Gandalf, "What are you going to do now, Wizard?" Who then proceeds to poke him in the eye with his staff and slice his stomach open. To which his last words are, "That'll do it." I literally facepalmed. Too corny.




I really just can't believe they successfully stretched 1/3 of the book into almost 3 hours without it sucking/dragging.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 16, 2012)

Ian Mckellen is looking pretty old these days.


----------



## Laura (Dec 16, 2012)

That's what fake cancer does to people.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 16, 2012)

He haves had cancer.


----------



## Inferno (Dec 16, 2012)

So do you guys recommend 48 FPS + 3D, 24 FPS + 3D, or just regular 2D and 24 FPS?


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 16, 2012)

Hidd3N_NiN said:


> Anyway, I don't recall if the whole Pale Orc story was ever in The Hobbit but somehow I get a feeling he's going to last all the way to the last film for the
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



That wasn't in The Hobbit.

Anyone can correct me if I'm exceptionally wrong, but I believe the Pale Orc story was invented by Jackson. Thorin did fight at Moria, but the story definitely didn't go down as Jackson wrote it, and it was hardly so detailed (I think it was actually his brother who died, and the villain who did it was never specified nor elaborated on). It was an okay addition if you take it for what it is, but I think it was a little awkward. I don't think Thorin needed another heroic subplot when he already was the archetypal king leading his lost people to reclaim their homeland. If anything, it compromised him, because it added a very selfish element to his character. It was pretty obvious that his "sacrifice" at the end when he charged the orc himself wasn't to protect the others, but out of personal vengeance, which just went against everything he was supposed to represent. 

The oaken shield was, however, in the original Tolkien lore.

And Gandalf was great, I agree.  

I didn't mind the Frodo thing at the beginning, either. (Was it really that long? I thought it was only maybe five minutes). I thought it was a nice touch, especially for people who never read any of the books and may have been wondering how the two trilogies fit together.


----------



## Laura (Dec 16, 2012)

Inferno said:


> So do you guys recommend 48 FPS + 3D, 24 FPS + 3D, or just regular 2D and 24 FPS?



Well I've always thought that 3D is best suited to entirely animated movie, but that's just my personal preference. I did watch it in 3D at 48 fps and although it was a bit distracting at first, I got used to it quite quickly. 

If you've seen movies in 3D before, then you had better choose for yourself because the difference is the same as always.

The faster frame rate is a bit distracting at first, so it's up to you whether you want to experience something new or stick to what you're used to.


----------



## tashtin (Dec 16, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> That wasn't in The Hobbit.
> I believe the Pale Orc story was invented by Jackson. Thorin did fight at Moria, but the story definitely didn't go down as Jackson wrote it.



It wasn't in the hobbit but it is canon. Though azog never held such a grudge against thorin and never chased him cos he was beheaded by dain at the foot of moria. It was his son bolg who hated the dwarves and went to the battle of five armies to avenge his father (and for the gold obviously)

It is a slight embellishment on jacksons part and the amalgamation of two orcs.


----------



## Starstalker (Dec 16, 2012)

PikaCheeka said:


> That wasn't in The Hobbit.
> 
> Anyone can correct me if I'm exceptionally wrong, but I believe the Pale Orc story was invented by Jackson. Thorin did fight at Moria, but the story definitely didn't go down as Jackson wrote it, and it was hardly so detailed (I think it was actually his brother who died, and the villain who did it was never specified nor elaborated on). It was an okay addition if you take it for what it is, but I think it was a little awkward. I don't think Thorin needed another heroic subplot when he already was the archetypal king leading his lost people to reclaim their homeland. If anything, it compromised him, because it added a very selfish element to his character. It was pretty obvious that his "sacrifice" at the end when he charged the orc himself wasn't to protect the others, but out of personal vengeance, which just went against everything he was supposed to represent.
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



Pale Orc is canon, but he had nothing to do with Hobbit. I think they added him because Thorin dies in the end by the hands of a random orc. I guess they added the pale orc to be that random orc so that Thorin's death is...better.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 16, 2012)

i saw the 48 fps in 3d, i thought it was great.   the picture is super clear, but i never felt it was fake looking.  whether it was day or night did make a difference though in the image , day time parts might have looked more "fake" i guess.  

some of the monsters looked like del toros creations , i wonder if it was the limit of his contribution to the story.  

the movie did feel a little bloated, but then i again i also felt that way about LOTR movies as well, they seemed to drag on some times.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2012)

Saw the movie yesterday, I'll give it a 7.5 out of 10. Movie was awesome. A damn shame Thorondor didn't speak with Gandalf.


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Dec 16, 2012)

Good movie

Shame there wasnt more of 
*Spoiler*: __ 



The Necromancer"


 

Also, i loved 
*Spoiler*: __ 



the Stone Giants


----------



## tashtin (Dec 16, 2012)

Black Leg Sanji said:


> Good movie
> 
> Shame there wasnt more of
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



They're clearly saving him for the next film. In the first trailer you can see gandalf walking in the ruins of dol goldur a scene not in this film.

There is also the confrontation between the wizards and the necromancer/ witch-king to look forward to.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 16, 2012)

Goblin king was the best part. Gollum, Necromancer and Azog scenes were up there, too. Radagast might be my favorite wizard now. I love how the Blue Wizards were mentioned and Gandalf humorously could not recall their names. Galadriel is Batman apparently. Loved the songs. Hope Christopher Lee lives long enough to film all his scenes. What little I've seen of Smaug ranks him as the greatest badass of all time. Movie was funny as hell. Loved Bombur and the talking Ogres. Loved the Eagles. Thorin shone as the protagonist more than Bilbo did, but that's intentional and in the early part of the book, too. I'm sure things were cut or added in, since I've read the book twice, but PJ is pretty good at telling a coherent story so it's fine.

I didn't notice the 48fps thing. It moved just like any other movie as far as my eyes could tell.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 16, 2012)

I'm not sure I would consider the 48fps thing a big criticism. Most theaters don't even have it showing, and those that do you have the option to watch it in 24fps instead.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 16, 2012)

Damn there's no local cinema playing it in 48fps, even the local Imax isn't HFR. Oh well.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 16, 2012)

pretty legit movie.
Also, I loved the 48 fps. It has a problem with long term watching though. It makes your eyes go fuzzy.
You need to close your eyes for a minute or two if you want to get the sharpness back


----------



## Matta Clatta (Dec 16, 2012)

I liked it I
I'm pretty skeptical about how the next two films will look but enough can be made of the fact that it isn't trying to be like the previous trilogy.
I was ready to write it off as a cash grab when I heard about the trilogy instead of just one movie but all in all if you do more original things that incorporate Tolkien lore it shouldn't be too much of an issue.


----------



## Superrazien (Dec 17, 2012)

Really good movie I found it more action packed than the Fellowship.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 17, 2012)

Phew. my review of it is finally in sig. Hope you enjoy!


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 17, 2012)

Three movies, eh?

Milking it like there's no tomorrow.


----------



## WT (Dec 17, 2012)

Absolutely loved it. 

I'm going to see it again. Normally I don't watch movies twice. Its that damn good.

Really entertaining and warms your heart. Its in the Hobbit that you really start acknowledging how innocent the hobbits are and why they're the main protagonists of the movies. You also understand the reasons for Gandalfs deep love for the hobbits.

One of my favorite part is when:

*Spoiler*: __ 




He's speaking to Galadriel who asks him why he does what he does and why he's chosen Bilbo and not someone more capable. To this, Gandalf replies that its the small good deeds that change the world not the big ones. Small gestures of kindess and love. I totally agree with him. I also love the part when Thorrin asks why Bilbo has returned (Thorrin strongly believes that Bilbo isn't suited for battle, that he'd rather be at home sitting on his comfy chair in the comfort of his home and bed), to which Bilbo replies that he does love his home, and it is for that reason he wants the Dwarves to find their home again.


----------



## OS (Dec 17, 2012)

Matta Clatta said:


> I liked it I
> I'm pretty skeptical about how the next two films will look but enough can be made of the fact that it isn't trying to be like the previous trilogy.
> I was ready to write it off as a cash grab when I heard about the trilogy instead of just one movie but all in all if you do more original things that incorporate Tolkien lore it shouldn't be too much of an issue.



My friend had told me Jackson is using the 3rd as kind of an original movie. Kind of. It's to bride the two trilogies together.


----------



## Fruit Monger (Dec 17, 2012)

So my local theater is playing The Hobbit in four different versions: 

1) Standard
2) 3D
3) IMAX 3D
4) HFR 3D 

Any suggestions on which to watch? I'm not a fan of 3D.


----------



## B Rabbit (Dec 17, 2012)

I watched the movie. I loved it, although the actual book "The Hobbit" is only 400+ pages long. I don't know how they can stetch that into 3 movies.


----------



## Akatora (Dec 17, 2012)

An enjoyable movie, a few things was a bit silly though like the brown wizard or the whiny Troll.

Personally if i should rate it at Imdb i'd give it 8/10 where as the Lotr trilogy were at 9-10/10 imo




B Rabbit said:


> I watched the movie. I loved it, although the actual book "The Hobbit" is only 400+ pages long. I don't know how they can stetch that into 3 movies.



and not simply 3 avg movie length of 80-100 min


----------



## Laura (Dec 18, 2012)

Fruit Monger said:


> So my local theater is playing The Hobbit in four different versions:
> 
> 1) Standard
> 2) 3D
> ...



Well Imax is always good if you don't mind paying. But according to your dislikes I'd recommend the standard one.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 18, 2012)

I watched this (in 2D of course) yesterday and thought it was superb, but it did have its faults. Some of the CGI made my eyes bleed, and it's shocking it got through Peter Jackson's quality control, and many of the biggers trolls and goblins and stuff were looking really fake. And Azog? What the fuck, man? He looked weak, fake and pathetic, and was too clean and nice. He wasn't scary, gross or badass. Thought LotR did many of these things a lot better.

Lot's of great acting too. Martin Freeman was amazing, Ian McKellen was amazing (as always) and of course this guy, one of the best actors of all time:



He's a little younger there of course, but he was amazing back then, and amazing nowadays. He won the whole film, even though he didn't have a major role.

But yeah, I am super satisfied and cannot wait for the next film.


----------



## Gnome (Dec 18, 2012)

I personally thought Andy Serkis stole the show.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 18, 2012)

He was really, really good, but few actors can match Christopher Lee. The few I can think of who can are already dead.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 18, 2012)

Radagast is my favorite character, the more I think about it, and I love the reference to the two Blue wizards whose names Gandalf could not recall.

This was actually a really good nod to the lore, because Tolkien never left any notes about what their names in Middle Earth were. Their original names in the Undying Lands as Maia are known, but not their Middle Earth names, which would be the names Gandalf would refer to them as. The Istari never reveal their true names to mortals. (If you listen closely, just before Gandalf zones out during Saruman's tirade against Radagast, he actually drops the term "Istari", a nod to the deeper lore.) 

Radagast also mentions Ungoliant, the spider who mothered Shelob and the Mirkwood spiders. This shows he's far wiser and more powerful than he lets on. Also, he disarmed the Witch King, even if it was a weakened version of him. _He also brought an animal back from the dead_. Not just healed him - the little hedgehog was dead.


----------



## Shark Skin (Dec 18, 2012)

Saw it today and I really liked it. Loved the Bilbo-Gollum scene.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 18, 2012)

Some of these lyrics


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 19, 2012)

One thing I also really liked was the dwarfs singing. I felt it was very natural, and that wa something I was sceptical about before the film, because I thought it might would end up very forced. Well done.


----------



## Forces (Dec 19, 2012)

Everywhere the movie was shown it debuted #1
Except in Japan
Bad time to debut for the movie
Anyway might watch it when it's albanian subbed on ppv channel
Not sure if I should read the book first,
but won't have time for months


----------



## damuttz01 (Dec 19, 2012)

Looking forward to this.


----------



## Ausorrin (Dec 19, 2012)

Really enjoyed the movie. But ended abruptly I think. The fight scenes were very good. Good acting as well


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 19, 2012)

It's hard for a movie that's part of a planned trilogy _not_ to end quickly, especially when it's adapted from a novel and some notes. Besides, it was three hours in length already.

Going back and re-viewing the first trailer to this film, I notice that parts in the trailer weren't in the film, but the trailer was made before the announcement it would be a trilogy and not a two parter. Notably, the scene with Gandalf at the ruins was absent. I've been told this was actually in an early test screening, and involved him discovering the tombs of the Nazgul empty with their protective spells dispelled.


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 19, 2012)

They're gonna introduce the Necromancer story in to the second film so I imagine the Nazgul stuff is in there.


----------



## Khyle (Dec 19, 2012)

Where does the movie end? Do they get to Mirkwood? (I wanted to go to the cinema today but it will have to wait 'til next week).


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 19, 2012)

Khyle said:


> Where does the movie end? Do they get to Mirkwood? (I wanted to go to the cinema today but it will have to wait 'til next week).



No, they don't get that far. They get rescued by the Eagles and placed on a large hill that resembles a bear's head. (Foreshadowing - it's Hollywood movie magic, kids.)


----------



## Al-Yasa (Dec 19, 2012)

liked the film but my only criticism is that they used CGI for the orcs (especially the pale one)


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 19, 2012)

That seems to be a common complaint. I suppose it was a stylistic choice. I kinda liked his look. And he was The Defiler. That's my favorite title. 

OH..

I'm getting this game now just because of the Great Goblin


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 19, 2012)

I saw this film on Saturday, but have been too busy to post about it until now.

I enjoyed the film immensely; to say that it was epic would be an understatement. Peter Jackson has definitely done justice to Tolkien's classic tale, in my mind.

I am very glad that the book was divided into multiple films, as that gave the story writers the ability to expand various aspects of the story, making them more epic and grand. The story would not have been the same, in my mind, if there was only a single film made from the book. I am slightly wary of the idea of dividing the book into three films, as two seemed to be a more logical decision, to me, with one film covering the journey from the Shire to the Lonely Mountain, and the second film covering the battle with Smaug and the return journey. If the remainder of the book is in the second film, what shall there be for the third film?

I have not read the book in years, but I did notice that some elements of this film were not in the original book. Azog the Defiler is a canonical character, but was added to this film to provide a strong antagonist for Thorin, the Byronic hero of this story (Bilbo is more of a traditional and "straight" hero), and he actually did die during the battle at Moria in the source material. The scene where Elrond, Galadriel, Gandalf, and Saruman conversed may not have been completely canon; I do believe that Saruman was mentioned in the book, but did not appear in person, and him mentioning Sauron by name was not canonical, as Tolkien had not yet established Sauron's identity at the time that he wrote _The Hobbit._

I am very glad that the greeting between Bilbo and Gandalf was kept for the film and the same is true for the riddles between Bilbo and Gollum, which is definitely one of the most dramatically-tense scenes in the book, and therefore, the film, as well. I also especially liked how Gandalf stated that he could not recall the names of the two blue wizards, as they do not ever appear in the books and are mentioned only in Tolkien's notes. I also noticed that a goblin gave a Wilhelm scream when he was thrown off a ledge during the battle in the mountain; did anyone else notice that? Another particular favorite scene of mine was when Gandalf stated to Bilbo that "true courage is knowing not when to take a life, but when to spare one," and then Bilbo later spared Gollum's life; I definitely felt the emotional drama of that scene.

If _Sting_ glows blue when Orcs are nearby, why did _Glamdring_ and _Orcrist_ not glow, as well, since they are also of elvish make? Will Beorn, the skin-changer, appear in the next film? I hope so, as I recall that I was fond of his character when I first read the book years ago.

I also see that Smaug was never shown in his entirety in the film, which is most likely because the film makers wish to keep an atmosphere of suspense regarding his character for the next film. I definitely am very eager to see how he shall appear in the next film.

Overall, I enjoyed this film greatly, and definitely imagine that it shall have a great legacy many years into the future. Peter Jackson did a spectacular job in making it, and I expect the remaining films to be as awesome as was this one.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 19, 2012)




----------



## sworder (Dec 19, 2012)

Superb movie. Never read the books and thought I'd get bored halfway through since it's so long and my attention span is not that good, but I really enjoyed it.


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)




----------



## Pilaf (Dec 20, 2012)

He was a random Dwarf fleeing Erebor in An Unexpected Journey.

Did anyone else notice the Dwarf women had beards? Aragorn was right.


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)

They did? How did I not notice this?


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 20, 2012)

You were probably too busy jizzing your pants because you finally got to see the film.


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)

What makes you think that I even like the hobbit?


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 20, 2012)

I just have this weird feeling telling me you do like it.


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)

Stalker.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 20, 2012)

Agsrower said:


> They did? How did I not notice this?


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 20, 2012)

Agsrower said:


> Stalker.



Shit, now you know. I knew I shouldn't have answered.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 20, 2012)

Apparently the Battle of Five Armies isn't until part three:


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 20, 2012)

Not that it has anything to do with the film, but I am thinking about lending The Hobbit at my local library since I'm gonna have some longish traintrips this christmas. I wonder if they have it in English, since that's the language I'd prefer to read it in.


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)

"Borrowing from" would be better. Lending implies that you are giving it to your library.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 20, 2012)

Oh shit, I didn't notice I wrote that. I blame it on being tired from using lots of hours buying christmas presents to people. It's a shame I only ended up with one gift after 4 hours of  walking around and trying to find stuff.

MY LIFE'S SO HARD.


----------



## Slam Demon (Dec 20, 2012)

Loved the book, and went IMAX/3D for the film and enjoyed that too. Well done Mr Jackson


----------



## Laura (Dec 20, 2012)

His title is _Sir_ Jackson actually.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 20, 2012)

LOL..the description of Gloin from New Line Cinema:

_"Of all the members in The Company of Dwarves who set out on the Quest to The Lonely Mountain, Gloin is the most outspoken and opinionated and is not afraid to challenge authority. He has a tendency to be quick-tempered, but he is also strong, brave and loyal. Gloin is one of the only married Dwarves in the Company (there being a shortage of female Dwarves in general). *His wife is an acclaimed beauty with a particularly fine beard*. Gloin is also the proud father of a young son, Gimli, who will later grow up to become part of the famous Fellowship of the Ring."_


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 21, 2012)

I wish my girlfriend had a fine beard.




Awesome!


----------



## WT (Dec 21, 2012)

what do you guys think about this song:

One Piece: Pirate Warriors 2 Scan 2, Release Date March 20, 2013


----------



## Uncle Acid (Dec 21, 2012)

I think it's amazing.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 21, 2012)

I've listened to it like 100 times.


----------



## Ruby (Dec 22, 2012)

Saw this movie in regular 2-D and I have to say I was walking in not really expecing it to be as good as the original Lord of the Ring trilogy. I found out I was completely wrong when I came out of the movie three hours later. It certainly deserves to be just as great as the other three. It was simply amazing :33 

I think the best part about this movie were the characters, especially the dwarves. They really brought out the life of the movie so that the audience connected most with them and Bilbo. Another aspect of the movie that completely blew me away was the beautiful scenery that I'm sure took Peter Jackson and his crew ages to find. 

The only downside I felt the film had was the CGI. It was good CGI but I felt as though it was a lot more overdone and used than in the three previous films. Some of the scenes looked kinda fake when there was too much CGI. But maybe that's just me.

Overall, I thought this film was beyond amazing and if you haven't watched it yet I would definitely recommend going to see it. I hope it makes it to the Oscars!


----------



## WT (Dec 22, 2012)

The Hobbit is a film that made me watch all 3 of the LOTR again.

I noticed that I enjoyed LOTR a lot more after watching the Hobbit. Absolutely loved it. Especially the song.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2012)

Courtesy of my friend and rolemodel Michael


----------



## dream (Dec 22, 2012)

Ruby said:


> The only downside I felt the film had was the CGI. It was good CGI but I felt as though it was a lot more overdone and used than in the three previous films. Some of the scenes looked kinda fake when there was too much CGI. But maybe that's just me.



I felt felt that things were fake early on while I get getting used to 48fps but after that it never came to my attention that something looked fake besides the troll king and a few minor things.


----------



## Coteaz (Dec 22, 2012)

Saw it today. As awesome as I had hoped.



Pilaf said:


> It'll be interesting to see how they handle Azog's son, since in the Hobbit book he was there to avenge his father, but in the movies his father is still alive.


It's pretty obvious that Azog will die in the 2nd film, then his son will rally the Orc/Gobbo/Warg clans for the battle in #3.


----------



## Synn (Dec 22, 2012)

Watched it yesterday and it was definitely up to my expectations.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 22, 2012)

Just saw it today.

I think LotR is slightly better, but its still a very good movie. Mostly that was because you could tell that they were stretching things out quite a bit, and maybe a little too many shout-outs to the original trilogy, as well as the original being a bit more intense (the original is a much darker story, obviously, but still- they were _trying_ to make this one intense). And maybe it lacked a bit of the spectacle and real stand-out, jaw dropping scenes that the first three occassionaly pulled out. Some of the character and story arcs were a bit obvious and predictable, too (but not done poorly), . And its been said before, but the scenes in the Shire (esp. Old Bilbo) last a little too long, though they are done well enough.

I dunno. Maybe its just because it wasn't as fresh, and seeing all the old faces and places made me long for something new (even if, since its an adaptation and I know the story, I knew and know that won't be coming)- just, something to make it feel as much of an adventure to me as it is to Bilbo. It just tried to tie itself into the first three movies a little too much, I personally thought. It made the whole thing feel a little.....smaller, and too neat. It is self-consciously a prequel, while the book was the start of something new.

It certainly didn't feel 2 1/2 hours long, so I guess its hard to argue that it drew me in. The acting, cinematography, action, special effects and script are as brilliant as ever, though the ending felt slightly abrupt (which, on the flip-side, brings back to how little I noticed the length- its just that _Fellowship_, in particular, had me on the edge of my seat with all of those false-climaxes, and I kindof miss that). Middle-Earth is as beautiful as it has ever been, and though I think its not quite up to the standard of the first three movies, that still puts it leagues ahead of most other movies out there. The next two will probably be even better.



Pilaf said:


> Apparently the Battle of Five Armies isn't until part three



Er....wasn't that kindof obvious?


----------



## Laura (Dec 22, 2012)

Solaris said:


> I felt felt that things were fake early on while I get getting used to 48fps but after that it never came to my attention that something looked fake besides the troll king and a few minor things.



Yeah I was the same, after I got used to it the quality seemed better. Although the troll scene, goblin kingdom and the view of rivendell all were hard to "believe".


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 22, 2012)

masamune1 said:


> Er....wasn't that kindof obvious?




Not entirely. It was likely, but another likelihood would be that at least half of movie 3 will concern the Necromancer story arc and the adventures Bilbo had between Smaug and returning home, which were hinted at but never described.


----------



## -Dargor- (Dec 23, 2012)

Movie was excellent, only crazy nerds are nitpicking at it for ridiculous reasons, it's fantasy you shouldn't expect it to look or feel real...

Instant classic as far as adventure movies go, easilly beats 90% of the genre.


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Dec 23, 2012)

My friends and I decided to go watch the movie again today at 48FPS and 3D just to see what the fuss was about and wow, the movie was incredibly clear and had incredibly high graphical fidelity in 48fps. I don't know if it was just the theater or projector quality or whatever or if it really was the 48fps effect but certain scenes, like the establishing shot of Rivendell especially, was insanely beautiful when I saw it in 48fps compared to first seeing it in 24fps.

The 48FPS didn't bother me as much as I had expected. It was only the first few minutes where I felt the footage seemed incredibly fast compared to when I had seen it in 24fps but after awhile, I just got used to it. For the most part about complaints of the film looking fake, I didn't really notice much of those issues. Certain scenes definitely did look a little fake to me though especially the Storm Giant Sequence. The clarity and fake lighting on the characters in their reaction shots in contrast to the CGI shots was really noticeable. The smoothness of the camera movement also made the shots showing any actors look like some amusement park ride. Really awkward. But overall, aside from certain shots here and there throughout the movie where u can notice the fakeness of the movie sets, most of the movie looked great.

I'm not going to be picking HFR for every new movie that has it in the future but I'm definitely not so worried about it anymore. My friends and I did agree though that we definitely wouldn't mind watching the next 2 movies in 48fps when they come out.


----------



## Huntress (Dec 23, 2012)

The Hobbit - 7/10

I liked it, the other shit they have added in from the footnotes has been done well. I like the amount of humor in it and the action is awesome, especially the rock giants, they are my faveorite.
My complaint would be that some of the scenes do drag abit, mainly due to the slight changes. The best example is when Thorin climbs off the tree to have that face off with the albino orc; they seemed to stare at each other for ages, and it was abit lame having each of the drawves slowly fall off the branches and shit while the stare down was happening. 
I know it was supposed to build tension but there was plenty of tension in that scene, and really having them all fall off the tree onto the hawks would have been fine, rather than Thorin trying to battle the orc. He will obviously battle him at a later date, a shorter stare off would have been just fine.
My other complaint would be the goblin kings voice, it should have sounded abit more menacing rather than so well spoken, but its a minor complaint.
I saw it in 2D because that showing had subtitles, which i prefer.


----------



## Muk (Dec 23, 2012)

just saw it in 3d 
loved it


----------



## MajorThor (Dec 23, 2012)

Motherfucking 3 movies for 1 goddamn book. Greed, greed everywhere.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 23, 2012)

Well where to start...

*Spoiler*: __ 




THE BAD! Cause everyone likes throwing crap at things:
Oh yes, there is A LOT of greed behind this project. Because 3 movies of a 300 page book is simply Shenanigans.

And I can start to point at this because there is a crap load of stuff that never happened in the book.

There was even a point where Bilbo ceased to be the main character, in Rivendell, you just forget about him and he becomes a supporting character.

Radagast felt like he jumped from a different movie, and the CG animals just kept reminding you this. To say the least I did NOT like Radagast's design.

Galadriel, what the frigging frags was she doing in there? I get it that they wanted to conect this to LOTR as much as possible but this was just TOO DAMN Digested for the public. Also Galadriel always appears to be some kind of nymphomaniac self important slut in these movies.

Yes yes, they took this shit from the Apendixes of LOTR, but this is THE HOBBIT NOT Lotr. And you have to stay focused on the freaking Main character.

The Stone Giants just reminded you that the characters couldnt die and that was just too over the top.

Thorin was a super sociopath, seriously he was stubborn and hard on the book but this was over the top.
Bilbo kept getting emo, and emo, and emo even after He and Thorin had plenty of chances to solve their differences. And all for the sake of making the movie long.

Peter Jackson says he is no good at making short movies, well then that's HIS Editors Problem. He could had fitted all the story on a single movie heck let alone two.

But what bothers me is the over the top  DEAD FUCKING SERIOUS tone. Specially at the beginning. They took away all the sarcasm and the jokes.


The Good:
The Parts that Guillermo Del Toro's Parts where brilliant. And I can tell you which ones where his.
The Trolls, Azog's and most prominent The Goblin King.
Heck The Goblin King was amazing! I actually wanted that scene to go further and further.
The Trolls where great too, they where like Hooligans.
Azog was pretty cool too, he IS actually in the book. Well his "son" is but I don't mind that they switched places. He was pretty well done.

The Music was not memorable at all, except the misty mountains song. But that credit goes to Tolkien cause he wrote it.

I also liked Thranduil and his Wood elves. And I am glad that they used John Howe's design for Smaug too.


----------



## Ruby Moon (Dec 24, 2012)

It was good to see Christopher Lee and Ian McKellan again. The movie was good. It wasn't as bad as the critics say, nor was it awesome. Bilbo, as the hero of the story, isn't as quick to say yes to Gandalf as Frodo was in The Lord of the Rings, I must say. Poor Bilbo, those damn dwarves just up and barged into his house and ate his food!  That wasn't very nice. It was the first time Gandalf did anything that rude. He did great in outsmarting Smeagol. So that's how he got The Ring.


----------



## Ruby (Dec 24, 2012)

Solaris said:


> I felt felt that things were fake early on while I get getting used to 48fps but after that it never came to my attention that something looked fake besides the troll king and a few minor things.



I have a keen eye for these things so it harder for me to overlook 


I thought the critics were too harsh on judging the movie. I mean, in some peoples' eyes it didn't live up to the hype or expectations based on the other three films, but surely it was a better adaption than a lot of other prequels.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 24, 2012)

I think what we've learned from this movie is...  dwarves can be cool too.


----------



## Furious George (Dec 24, 2012)

So The Hobbit was pretty awesome.

Pacing was, ironically enough, just like reading the LoTR novels rather than The Hobbit which was pretty much straight to the point. Lots of attention to things that only kind of involve the main storyline in this film.... I had no problem with it. 


Something that did bother me was the film's portrayal of Bilbo Baggins. 

Quite frankly, that was* not* Bilbo Baggins. 

Martin Freeman gives a good performance, so the problem is the way the character was written. See, in the novel Bilbo was incredibly nice and friendly and curiously prideful. The moment the dwarves doubt that he's a capable burglar is the moments when he rises to the occasion to show them up. 

In the film however Bilbo is bumbling, standoffish (his meeting with Gandalf at the beginning he felt far too rude) and has no moments of pride. This is an issue because that was a BIG part of his character. I understand that something's *need* to be altered for adaptation's sake. Bilbo's character was not one of those things.

Ragadast also got far more screentime than he could have ever deserved.... and he had troll cum on the side of his face. 

Why did Ragadast have troll cum on the side of his face?

Beside that though, perfectly fine movie. Great action scenes, great directing, excellent score, the typical Peter Jackson treatment. 

*8.5/10*


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 24, 2012)

Luiz said:


> I think what we've learned from this movie is...  dwarves can be cool too.



Dwarves were always cool.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 24, 2012)

George, you know darn well where that post outta be.


----------



## Furious George (Dec 26, 2012)

^ In the Gaming Department? 

Because I'm not talking about a video game, Stunna, its a movie.


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Dec 26, 2012)

_Some of the CGI seems less detailed than in the previous films. Perhaps because they have more characters and creatures that way.
I do wonder how Azog would look as a costumed actor instead._


Suigetsu said:


> The Parts that Guillermo Del Toro's Parts where brilliant. And I can tell you which ones where his.


_I'm not familiar with his style. What parts were his?_


> The Music was not memorable at all, except the misty mountains song.


_I liked the parts carried over from the previous films and the parts added for the new characters._


Furious George said:


> Why did Ragadast have troll cum on the side of his face?


_That would be bird poop. From the birds' nest in his hair._


----------



## steveht93 (Dec 26, 2012)

Luiz said:


> I think what we've learned from this movie is...  dwarves can be cool too.



Didn't you watch LOTR? Gimli a dwarf was one of the best characters Inge triology. And gimli is the son of one of the 13 dwarves in the movie,don't remember which.


----------



## Khyle (Dec 26, 2012)

steveht93 said:


> Didn't you watch LOTR? Gimli a dwarf was one of the best characters Inge triology. And gimli is the son of one of the 13 dwarves in the movie,don't remember which.


Gl?in.

10char


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 26, 2012)

I love that the Great Goblin is played by Dame Edna.


----------



## Baks (Dec 26, 2012)

Anybody got any guesses on  when the second movie will end?

My personal guess is it will probably end when the dwarves and Bilbo leave Lake Town.


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Dec 26, 2012)

Baks said:


> Anybody got any guesses on  when the second movie will end?
> 
> My personal guess is it will probably end when the dwarves and Bilbo leave Lake Town.


_Probably after Smaug's defeat but before the Battle of Five Armies._


----------



## steveht93 (Dec 26, 2012)

Do you guys think they might make an adaptation of the similarion?


----------



## Baks (Dec 26, 2012)

Snow Miser said:


> _Probably after Smaug's defeat but before the Battle of Five Armies._



I think they may save Smaug getting killed until the third film.

I expect a lot of the second film to deal with Gandalf finding out that Sauron is the Necromancer and how the council force him from Dol Goldur.


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 26, 2012)

The rights to _The Silmarillion_ belong to Christopher Tolkein, and he doesn't like the movies.

So, probably not. Plus, _The Silmarillion_ is _way, way_ more epic than both _Hobbit_ and _LotR_ combined. It might turn out to be far _too_ epic to film.


----------



## Furious George (Dec 26, 2012)

Yeah, I'm hoping they just leave The Silmarillion alone. Far too many characters and too many plots going on there for a proper movie adaptation. 

That and I'm afraid they would have to go too heavy on the CGI for most of the scenes and it would end up looking fruity.


----------



## martryn (Dec 26, 2012)

> Do you guys think they might make an adaptation of the similarion?



No real main characters.  The cast would be too large and half of them would be elves, so everyone would look the same.  It'd be hard to give anyone a personality.


----------



## tashtin (Dec 26, 2012)

The scope of the silmarillion is a detriment to it ever being adapted into a movie but there are several stand alone stories that can be; tale of luthien, children of hurin...



martryn said:


> No real main characters.  The cast would be too large and half of them would be elves, so everyone would look the same.  It'd be hard to give anyone a personality.



Well that's not entirely true. There are several (standout) characters that would fit the criteria and could easily drive the story along.

Then there's the story of "children of hurin" which can (with effort) be adapted into a movie, in Turin you have a better lead than any found in lotr.

Also the noldorin are quite flawed which makes for great characters.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Dec 27, 2012)

This movie was dreadful, it's the first time i've laughed out loud at a film in the cinema for reasons not intended by the screenwriter, like, ever.  The main problem is that in order to pad out the film to 9 hours they've extended vague allusions and sketches of events in the appendices of the LOTR and in the Hobbit itself into entire sequences, which were then written badly and filled with pointless OTT violence, seemingly in an attempt to force the much more light hearted Hobbit into the same mold as its sequel.  So instead of the head dwarf being a vain and greedy s.o.b, he's now a doom laden super warrior on a quest to restore his people from diaspora, in the same vein as Aragorn.  Instead of confused and brief battle sequences we're tortured by endless clanging and growling and lamentations, the Dwarves didn't heroically battle those trolls in the book they were plucked up without a fight, but apparently we needed one; perhaps to preserve the dwarves' dignity?  The worst part is how Bilbo has been turned into an ineffectual wimp like his nephew, originally he only needs a little prodding to go off on his adventure and he's not remotely intimidated by his companions, he's adapted into some-kind of agoraphobic in this

5/10


----------



## Vila (Dec 28, 2012)

I watched The Hobbit yesterday. I have to say that the movie was spectacular. Especially in HFR version.

I give it 9/10. Just because perfection doesn't exist.

Thorin Oakenshield and dwarves are badass.


----------



## Laura (Dec 28, 2012)

I just thought I'd post in here again because I updated my set.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 29, 2012)

Pilaf said:


> Dwarves were always cool.





steveht93 said:


> Didn't you watch LOTR? Gimli a dwarf was one of the best characters Inge triology. And gimli is the son of one of the 13 dwarves in the movie,don't remember which.



I don't know, he didn't seem to be actually taken seriously as a character in the movies.



Furious George said:


> Something that did bother me was the film's portrayal of Bilbo Baggins.
> 
> Quite frankly, that was* not* Bilbo Baggins.
> 
> ...



Huh...  

As someone who hasn't read that book, I'd say that's a shame.

But the movie is very enjoyable, that can't be questioned.


----------



## SageMaster (Dec 30, 2012)

Adapting the Silmarillion would be like adapting a history book from the Roman Empire to our times. It's simply pointless.

Some stories can be adapted though. I've always liked the idea of a miniseries.


----------



## Shivers (Dec 30, 2012)




----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 30, 2012)

masamune1 said:


> The rights to _The Silmarillion_ belong to Christopher Tolkein, and he doesn't like the movies.
> 
> So, probably not. Plus, _The Silmarillion_ is _way, way_ more epic than both _Hobbit_ and _LotR_ combined. It might turn out to be far _too_ epic to film.



Its not too epic to film. ITs just 2 hours of action and 8 hours of boring shit wouldnt make for a good movie


----------



## Ennoea (Dec 30, 2012)

> In the film however Bilbo is bumbling, standoffish (his meeting with Gandalf at the beginning he felt far too rude



But Bilbo isn't rue, he's a Hobbit and a Baggins. No matter what they make their guests comfortable.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 31, 2012)

Baks said:


> I think they may save Smaug getting killed until the third film.
> 
> I expect a lot of the second film to deal with Gandalf finding out that Sauron is the Necromancer and how the council force him from Dol Goldur.



fking secondary plot that has nothing to do with the actual story. Just a set up for a freaking story that we have seen already...  fking PJ and fking studios.


----------



## Santeira (Dec 31, 2012)

Never read the book, just watched the movie. 

A nearly perfect movie, got me all interested to read the book. 

I think that's great since I was never a fan of Tolkien and I haven't even watched The Lord of the Rings. 

Now, I want to know _everything_.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 31, 2012)

Snow Miser said:


> [_I'm not familiar with his style. What parts were his?_



The monsters, he loves monsters.
The Trolls part, the Goblin King parts, those definitely where his. Specially since the goblins actually talk, interact and are quite human instead of " ARGHH, YARGHH, WAAAAGHH! Smash em to Bitz!"

I am not really sure about Azog, it is probably tough. Because if it had been from PJ then it would have had a scarred eye or something. But placing an Orc Boss is always into PJ'S char.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Dec 31, 2012)

Suigetsu said:


> fking secondary plot that has nothing to do with the actual story. Just a set up for a freaking story that we have seen already...  fking PJ and fking studios.



actually it does. Gandalf specifically leaves the dwarves and Bilbo at the entrance of Mirkwood in the book so that he could go boot Sauron's ass out of the forest.

it does tie the movie together, but it is something that happens in the actual book


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 31, 2012)

Suigetsu said:


> The monsters, he loves monsters.
> The Trolls part, the Goblin King parts, those definitely where his. Specially since the goblins actually talk, interact and are quite human instead of " ARGHH, YARGHH, WAAAAGHH! Smash em to Bitz!"
> 
> I am not really sure about Azog, it is probably tough. Because if it had been from PJ then it would have had a scarred eye or something. But placing an Orc Boss is always into PJ'S char.



No, those are the Tolkein parts. They talked in the book _The Hobbit_, and some Orcs talked in _LotR._ The Trolls in _Hobbit_ book also talked even when the ones in the _LotR_ books didn't- that was handwaved with those Trolls being unusually clever, for Trolls.

And Azog having one hand sounds like one of those "scarred eye" things. Azog is mentioned in the book also, though in the book he actually did die at Moria and didn't just lose his hand. His son shows up later in the book, though he might not in the movies.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 1, 2013)

Emperor Joker said:


> actually it does. Gandalf specifically leaves the dwarves and Bilbo at the entrance of Mirkwood in the book so that he could go boot Sauron's ass out of the forest.
> 
> it does tie the movie together, but it is something that happens in the actual book



Ermm no, in the book sauron doesnt appear, nor the necromancer. The spiders where always there living in the forest as natural animals.
And this is a problem since they used a crap load of stuff from the apendixes just to fill gaps in order to make the movies longer and make a triology. My problem with this is that they sacrificed things and dialogue that happened in the book.

I was also really disappointed in the different nature of certian characters.



masamune1 said:


> No, those are the Tolkein parts. They talked in the book _The Hobbit_, and some Orcs talked in _LotR._ The Trolls in _Hobbit_ book also talked even when the ones in the _LotR_ books didn't- that was handwaved with those Trolls being unusually clever, for Trolls.
> 
> And Azog having one hand sounds like one of those "scarred eye" things. Azog is mentioned in the book also, though in the book he actually did die at Moria and didn't just lose his hand. His son shows up later in the book, though he might not in the movies.



I know those where by Tolkien man, I was talking about the production design and it being on the screenplay. Which was a really good thing.

I tought that Aozog instead of his son was better, because as far as I know the way the orcs breed are from pits of the ground. Since they where turned from ancient elves and thus are unable to reproduce like the other creatures. There are no female orcs.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Jan 2, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> Ermm no, in the book sauron doesnt appear, nor the necromancer. The spiders where always there living in the forest as natural animals.
> And this is a problem since they used a crap load of stuff from the apendixes just to fill gaps in order to make the movies longer and make a triology. My problem with this is that they sacrificed things and dialogue that happened in the book.
> 
> I was also really disappointed in the different nature of certian characters.
> ...



The Necromancer doesn't appear, but he's specifically mentioned several times in the book. they've kinda got to add in the Necromancer and them ousting him from Mirkwood at this point, because Gandalf will be leaving soon. there's got to be an explanation for that in the movie, so they might as well throw in stuff from the appendixes


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 2, 2013)

Emperor Joker said:


> The Necromancer doesn't appear, but he's specifically mentioned several times in the book. they've kinda got to add in the Necromancer and them ousting him from Mirkwood at this point, because Gandalf will be leaving soon. there's got to be an explanation for that in the movie, so they might as well throw in stuff from the appendixes



He is only mentioned one time in the book and the line was "We where bussy fighting a sorcerer"
That was it.


----------



## Emperor Joker (Jan 2, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> He is only mentioned one time in the book and the line was "We where bussy fighting a sorcerer"
> That was it.



No he wasn't because it was mentioned while they were at Bag End in the book that Thrain had given Gandalf the map when he had stumbled onto him at Dol Goldur...because in the book it's mentioned that Thrain had spent years as the Necromancer's prisoner.

the Necromancer is mentioned again when Bilbo asks why they can't go around Mirkwood instead of through it. Gandalf mentions that if they go around they'll either run right into Dol Goldur or end up having to fight their way through hordes of Goblinfolk.

On the way back from the Mountain, Gandalf mentions that the Necromancer has been ousted from the forest and it is safe to go around the forest now. 

The Necromancer is present in the book, he's just offscreen...and like I said they're going to have to explain why Gandalf suddenly just up and leaves anyway, so why not throw the fight in


----------



## Baks (Jan 2, 2013)

Emperor Joker said:


> No he wasn't because it was mentioned while they were at Bag End in the book that Thrain had given Gandalf the map when he had stumbled onto him at Dol Goldur...because in the book it's mentioned that Thrain had spent years as the Necromancer's prisoner.



Speaking of that, do you think they will show what happened to Thrain in the second film?


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 2, 2013)

An observation from a friend of mine on the LOTR movies:

"Rewatched LOTR on New Years and realized that Frodo falls down a lot. Like, a whole lot.

Just from memory, he falls off a cliff near Farmer Maggot's fields, busts ass in the Prancing Pony, trips backwards like an asshole on Weathertop, falls off the watchtower at Amon Hen, slips off the Real Elvish Rope at Emyn Muil, faceplants into the Dead Marshes, sit-falls after an argument with Sam near Minas Morgul, faceplants into a vision of Lothlorien, takes a super drunken balletic digger on the Plains of Gorgorath, and cags up on a rock on the slopes of Mt. Doom... and I'm not counting all the times he falls because he was shoved, tackled, or dropped by a lake monster.

Damn."


----------



## Jacob Shekelstein (Jan 2, 2013)

Seen the movie last week. I wasn't impressed. To be honest it was boring most of the time. There better be new characters in the other two parts. I sure as hell don't want to watch at 13 midgets all the time. Not that there is anything wrong with midgets.


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 2, 2013)

Azog looks almost cute in comparison to his more wretched looking kinsmen.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jan 2, 2013)

Since _The Lord of the Rings_ was adapted to film before _The Hobbit,_ there is little mystery regarding the side events of this film: the appearance of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, the conversation at Rivendell, the dark forces that Radagast encountered, and the ring that Bilbo acquired from Gollum. I asked this before, but why did Peter Jackson choose to adapt _LotR_ before _The Hobbit?_ Was the _LotR_ trilogy more popular, and thus, a more profitable project?


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 2, 2013)

The Hobbit is a single smaller book. With LotR more movies could be made, which means more money.

Of course, it didn't stop him from splitting the former into three, but technically LotR offers more material that can be used.


----------



## KazeYama (Jan 2, 2013)

DemonDragonJ said:


> Since _The Lord of the Rings_ was adapted to film before _The Hobbit,_ there is little mystery regarding the side events of this film: the appearance of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, the conversation at Rivendell, the dark forces that Radagast encountered, and the ring that Bilbo acquired from Gollum. I asked this before, but why did Peter Jackson choose to adapt _LotR_ before _The Hobbit?_ Was the _LotR_ trilogy more popular, and thus, a more profitable project?



Apparently there was an issue of two separate companies having the rights for the two, he made the LOTR first because he got the rights to make the movies and then got the rights to make the hobbit after the success of LOTR. He always wanted to do hobbit first but it didn't work out.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 3, 2013)

Emperor Joker said:


> No he wasn't because it was mentioned while they were at Bag End in the book that Thrain had given Gandalf the map when he had stumbled onto him at Dol Goldur...because in the book it's mentioned that Thrain had spent years as the Necromancer's prisoner.
> 
> the Necromancer is mentioned again when Bilbo asks why they can't go around Mirkwood instead of through it. Gandalf mentions that if they go around they'll either run right into Dol Goldur or end up having to fight their way through hordes of Goblinfolk.
> 
> ...



Once I am back home I am gonna grab my old copy of the hobbit that I read in 6th grade and will re check that. Because even then, the events of the film where too changed. Gandalf should had been at Dol Guldur, not Radagast.
However I dont seem to recall them mentioning the necromancer, probably that was because I didn't know who the necromancer was yet. So I just tought it was a goblin fortress of sorts, and the company having to go trough Mirkwood because the Goblins where hunting them. Mad at them killing their King and escaping orcish retribution.

Also Galadriel... what the fck was she doing there? And why is she always such a slut in the movies by PJ?


----------



## Bart (Jan 3, 2013)

Baks said:


> Speaking of that, do you think they will show what happened to Thrain in the second film?



If you watch the first trailer you'll know the answer to that ^_^



Absolute Justice said:


> Seen the movie last week. I wasn't impressed. To be honest it was boring most of the time. There better be new characters in the other two parts. I sure as hell don't want to watch at 13 midgets all the time. Not that there is anything wrong with midgets.



Okay ...



DemonDragonJ said:


> Since _The Lord of the Rings_ was adapted to film before _The Hobbit,_ there is little mystery regarding the side events of this film: the appearance of the Necromancer in Dol Guldur, the conversation at Rivendell, the dark forces that Radagast encountered, and the ring that Bilbo acquired from Gollum. I asked this before, but why did Peter Jackson choose to adapt _LotR_ before _The Hobbit?_ Was the _LotR_ trilogy more popular, and thus, a more profitable project?



There's still a vast amount of things yet to be learn ;3

Jackson didnt make The Hobbit before Lord of the Rings because of the certain issues with production and distribution rights.



Luiz said:


> The Hobbit is a single smaller book. With LotR more movies could be made, which means more money.
> 
> Of course, it didn't stop him from splitting the former into three, but technically LotR offers more material that can be used.



Exactly; the Hobbit is one book whereas LOTR is three ;3

However, coupled with the fact aspects of the ROTK appendices are used should be considered.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jan 4, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> Also Galadriel... what the fck was she doing there? And why is she always such a slut in the movies by PJ?



"Slut?" Galadriel is, in my mind, the epitome of a graceful, elegant, and proper lady; there is nothing "slutty," promiscuous, or licentious about her at all, so why are you insulting her in such a manner?


----------



## Laura (Jan 4, 2013)

Hey I'm not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but why have the mods changed their names and sets to LotR characters?


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Jan 4, 2013)

Agsrower said:


> Hey I'm not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but why have the mods changed their names and sets to LotR characters?



Perhaps the franchise is currently so very popular, they wish to honor it by displaying their fondness for it?


----------



## dream (Jan 4, 2013)

DemonDragonJ said:


> "Slut?" Galadriel is, in my mind, the epitome of a graceful, elegant, and proper lady; there is nothing "slutty," promiscuous, or licentious about her at all, so why are you insulting her in such a manner?



You could clearly see in her eyes, when she was talking with him in the movie, that she wanted to rip off Gandalfs clothes and test out all the stuff that she learned from the Kama Sutra.  



Agsrower said:


> Hey I'm not sure if anyone has asked this yet, but why have the mods changed their names and sets to LotR characters?



Just for a bit of fun.  Some of us just wanted to do a staff user name theme.  LOTR was brought up as a possible theme and we used it.


----------



## Laura (Jan 4, 2013)

Oh ok.  Is that you preet?


----------



## Khyle (Jan 4, 2013)

I admit I felt slightly awkward when watching that scene with Galadriel and Gandalf. My rational part said I was imagining things, of course, but still...

Loved the movie, btw. Perhaps not as much as LOTR, true, but it was  thoroughly satisfying and beautiful. 9/10.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Jan 4, 2013)

must be your hormoneses.  gandalf looked old as shit, so did galadriel, i'm not into granny sex


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Jan 4, 2013)

Can't wait to see Galadriel take on Dol Guldur.





Manwe Sulimo said:


> You could clearly see in her eyes, when she was talking with him in the movie, that she wanted to rip off Gandalfs clothes and test out all the stuff that she learned from the Kama Sutra.


Who needs the Kama Sutra when you have a telepath so close to 13 dwarves. His beard must have been driving her crazy.


----------



## Grape (Jan 4, 2013)

Every time I see eagles in a Tolkien movie, I imagine the Rorschack journal entry about the whores and politicians asking to be saved and him whispering no  

Also Radagast the Blast > *


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 5, 2013)

"You goan get raped!"


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 5, 2013)

My sister told me that she behaved in a slutty way, and in truth she always seems like she is flirting with everyone. And that's the reaction that most of the audience got. At least in my case.

Dor Guldur is indeed mentioned in the book, but I find no trace of the necromancer. Please would you mind telling me in which pages is it mentioned?


----------



## Velocity (Jan 5, 2013)

The Necromancer? He's pretty much irrelevant in The Hobbit and, if I recall, barely mentioned at all. Even so, it's Sauron so he's obviously pretty important later on. Just not to Bilbo and the dwarves.


----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 6, 2013)

It doesn't take a genius to figure out that the hug scene with Thorin wasn't in the book, even if you haven't read it.


----------



## Suigetsu (Jan 6, 2013)

There is a crapload of filler gay crap in the movie. That's why I felt bothered by it so much.


----------



## Velocity (Jan 6, 2013)

I really rather liked the bit where the dwarves were singing...


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 6, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> My sister told me that she behaved in a slutty way, and in truth she always seems like she is flirting with everyone. And that's the reaction that most of the audience got. At least in my case.
> 
> Dor Guldur is indeed mentioned in the book, but I find no trace of the necromancer. Please would you mind telling me in which pages is it mentioned?



Page 34



> "Your grandfather," said the wizard slowly and grimly, "gave the map to his son for safety before he went to the mines of Moria. Your father went away to try his luck with the map after your grandfather was killed; and lots of adventures of a most unpleasant sort he had, but he never got near the Mountain. How he got there I don't know, but I found him a prisoner in the dungeons of the Necromancer."
> 
> "Whatever were you doing there?" asked Thorin with a shudder, and all the dwarves shivered. "Never you mind. I was finding things out, as usual; and a nasty dangerous business it was. Even I, Gandalf, only just escaped. I tried to save your father, but it was too late. He was witless and wandering, and had forgotten almost everything except the map and the key." "We have long ago paid the goblins of Moria," said Thorin; "we must give a thought to the Necromancer."
> 
> "Don't be absurd! He is an enemy quite beyond the powers of all the dwarves put together, if they could all be collected again from the four corners of the world. The one thing your father wished was for his son to read the map and use the key. The dragon and the Mountain are more than big enough tasks for you!"



I have recently started to read the book again and so far this is what I have come across. IIRC, there are many more passages referring to the Necromancer. This passage itself is very heavy in foreshadowing and I think it was great that Peter Jackson included the backstory for him in the movie.


----------



## martryn (Jan 6, 2013)

Wasn't the Necromancer mentioned in greater detail in one of the appendixes of The Lord of the Rings?  I know he gets a small bit in the Simirillion.


----------



## GaaraoftheDesert1 (Jan 6, 2013)

Enjoyable flick. Awesome soundtrack and direction. 
Had some tiring stuff but overral it was worth it.
Gandalf was way too haxxx... he stomped the shit out of everyone


----------



## -Dargor- (Jan 7, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> There is a crapload of filler gay crap in the movie. That's why I felt bothered by it so much.



Most people weren't, I sure wasn't, then again, I'm not an obsessively serious nerd about these things despite being a huge LOTR fan. If anything, it made the movie more fun.


----------



## Saishin (Jan 8, 2013)

I watched the movie it was cool  love the part when Gandalf and the dwarves escape from the goblins while they're fighting,best part of the movie


----------



## Turrin (Jan 15, 2013)

My Review of the new Hobbit video with a co host

[YOUTUBE]fnjOhZ71aC4[/YOUTUBE]

In Case that Link Doesn't Work: 

What did you think of the Hobbit Movie? Was it too long? Did you like the changes from the book?


----------



## Psychic (Jan 16, 2013)

I haven't read the book. I originally avoided this movie because of the trailer...it kinda reminded me of Frodo and Sam's endless whatever you call it relationship. But this movie was unexpectedly good. I really liked it, it reminds me of the Lord of the Rings w/o the annoying Sam and Frodo part. I give it a 9/10, really looking forward to the next one.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 17, 2013)

what do you guys think about this?

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OiYDUEu3i8&lc=x8zQT3vUI9dtdhs9gigX2KrnMpRwiYQyNTC-qqnXS5k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Psychic (Jan 19, 2013)

I think it's cool. Who needs instruments? I luv Acapalla.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 26, 2013)

A small parody of The Hobbit.


----------



## Ultra Instinct Vegito (Jan 26, 2013)

When does the next Hobbit movie come out?


----------



## Sanity Check (Feb 21, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]cLpyBwBhoy0[/YOUTUBE]

:WOW


----------



## TetraVaal (Jun 5, 2013)

*Evangeline Lilly*'s new character, *Tauriel*.



Something about her costume design really stands out. It's terrific. WETA never disappoints.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jun 9, 2013)

First poster of The Desolation of Smaug is out.


----------



## Bart (Jun 9, 2013)

Super amazing poster 

It's made me look forward to this film even more, and I think it's a fair conformation that DoS will, beyond any doubt, be much darker and complex than its predecessor; but for those who have read the book, the entrance is a "bit" misleading.


----------



## manwiththemachinegun (Jun 9, 2013)

Eh, not a great poster.


----------



## Cyphon (Jun 9, 2013)

Posted this in another thread. Didn't realize this was here.



I went into this with very low expectations. Keep in mind that I hated the books (trilogy), have only seen part of the first movie and have never read The Hobbit. 

That said, I really really enjoyed this movie. I have not one complaint to make as I write this review. The visuals were crazy good and made me want to be at those places. Acting, action, CGI etc.....All good or great or better. I liked it all. It would easily go in the top 5 from last year for me. I STILL have some movies to watch from last year but I doubt there is enough to knock this out of #5 since it may even be at 1 now. 

Anyway, I am not going to give it a 10 for 2 reasons. The first is that I kept being interrupted by life so I watched this in parts. With a 3 hour run time it may have dragged had I watched it whole. No way to know until I see it again. The 2nd thing is that I haven't read the book so I can't judge how it is adaption wise. So


9.5/10


----------



## Uncle Acid (Jun 10, 2013)

The CGI is good? Since when? Azog looks so fucking poor, it's just embarrassing. Rivendell also looked pretty poor. Why the hell would they use CGI instead of minatures?

Still loved the film, though.


----------



## Cyphon (Jun 10, 2013)

Uncle Acid said:


> The CGI is good? Since when? Azog looks so fucking poor, it's just embarrassing. Rivendell also looked pretty poor. Why the hell would they use CGI instead of minatures?



I thought Azog was a bland design so he looked bad as far as I didn't find him interesting but outside of that I thought he looked good. Movements and such I mean. I liked the way pretty much everything in the movie looked.


----------



## Bart (Jun 11, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1Gk0CD7njw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jun 11, 2013)

Not sure what to make of Smaug's design, may take some getting used too but better than what we got in the original film even if that does'nt say much. Movie looks good, I'm hyped.


----------



## gershwin (Jun 11, 2013)

Legolas turned into cgi creature


----------



## The World (Jun 11, 2013)

Azog may have a simple design, but he looked downright gorgeous in 1080p

His eye movements, his menacing snarl, all the facial details and voice acting were just amazing


----------



## santanico (Jun 11, 2013)

Gotta say, Benedict voicing Smaug has got me even more excited.


----------



## Tiger (Jun 11, 2013)

The faults people are finding with this and the first one make me laugh. You guys must be really bored and/or really jaded.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Jun 12, 2013)

Smaug looks unexpectedly cute. And small.


----------



## Khyle (Jun 12, 2013)

dat smaug 

I knew Legolas was going to appear but I thought it would only be one scene or two, not an active role like he seems he is going to have if the trailer is anything to go by. 

He looks a bit weird with those eyes and both his role and especially Tauriel's will probably get a lot of flak from book purists but I (someone who considers The Hobbit his favorite book) welcome them as long as that allows me to enjoy some extra minutes watching my beloved Middle Earth on a screen.


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 12, 2013)

Those CGI eyes kinda stood out imo

Aside from that, awesome as usual.


----------



## SageMaster (Jun 13, 2013)

The trailer makes it look like Legolas is the main character instead of Bilbo.


----------



## Wesley (Jun 13, 2013)

SageMaster said:


> The trailer makes it look like Legolas is the main character instead of Bilbo.



Next movie.  Bilbo will kind of fall to the wayside when the war begins.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jun 13, 2013)

SageMaster said:


> The trailer makes it look like Legolas is the main character instead of Bilbo.



Fangirl army attracting promo. More Legolas=more sales!


----------



## -Dargor- (Jun 14, 2013)

"Come in for pretty boy, stay for the story!"

Lame but effective


----------



## The World (Jun 14, 2013)

Yeah....................Smaug looking a bit too cartoonish


----------



## Amanda (Jun 17, 2013)

The screencaps look very pretty, but once in motion there's something off putting about it. Perhaps it's the cartoon physics. Anyway, people have pointed out the visuals do their best to differentate this trilogy from the LotR trilogy, while the script tries to make connections between the two. Hmm...


----------



## Wesley (Jun 17, 2013)

The World said:


> Yeah....................Smaug looking a bit too cartoonish



[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWVeZx2IP30[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Bender (Jun 17, 2013)

*Looking foward to Desolation of Smaug*


----------



## Wesley (Jun 29, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NGguk8VXYc[/YOUTUBE]

I choked while eating skittles.


----------



## James Bond (Jul 2, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Llxv8omjfU[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Jul 2, 2013)

Whatever the film will be like, at least Lake Town looks so pretty it hurts. 

DOS should have a lot of of content... the entirety of Mirkwood, then Lake Town, the getting inside Erebor and meeting Smaug... add to this the stuff about Necromancer and the White Council. The dialogue still sounds cheesy, and not trusting PJ's sense of drama either, but at least this time it shouldn't feel so bloated.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jul 2, 2013)

Surprised nobody is talking about Beorn. Beorn and that battle of the five armies is what I am really looking forward to see. Peter Jackson said in an interview that Beorns transformation is going to be a MASSIVE scene so i'm pumpeddddd


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Aug 31, 2013)

Promo images for The Desolation of Smaug:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Amanda (Sep 1, 2013)

Heavy rasengan, let's not talk about Beorn. What we've seen thus far is very unbromising, both the small picture, and the scene where a bear tries to eat them or whatever. Argh.

Thanks for those promo pics, Sennin! They've done good job making Bard look distinctive from Aragorn. Tauriel.... her hair is wonderful, but she's too ninjaesque and not Tolkienish enough. The make-up doesn't help. (Still determined to like her, just to spite the haters.)


----------



## Banhammer (Sep 1, 2013)

hey you guys, you think there might be elves in this movie


----------



## Amanda (Sep 2, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> hey you guys, you think there might be elves in this movie



You mean they feature heavily in the promos? Well, Mirkwood _is_ the new element, and something I too look forwards. Lee Pace as Thranduil might well turn out to be one of the high points of this trilogy. Though I'm also really nervous PJ will butcher him - a character like him requires subtlety, and PJ isn't exactly a subtle story teller. Poor Denethor.


----------



## gershwin (Sep 2, 2013)

Too much of Mary Sue Tauriel promo. They realy put her everywhere  

There are also some spoilers from The Hobbit Annual


*Spoiler*: __ 



- ?Beorn is the last shape-shifter in the whole of Middle-earth. Most of his kind were killed by Azog, so when Beorn finds out that The Company are fleeing from Azog, he agrees to help them.?
- Thranduil has ordered that his elves are not to leave the forest, and they?re not to have anything to do with any other race (especially the dwarves).
- When Thorin & co are captured, Thranduil guesses they?re going to the Lonely Mountain and will release the dwarves to go on their way, for a promise of a cut of the gold. But Thorin refuses, so he imprisons them.
- Legolas isn?t as set in his ways as his Dad.
- Tauriel is at odds with Thranduil and doesn?t understand, or agree with, his segregation. She?s ?very headstrong? and ?doesn?t always follow orders?. 
- Tauriel is ?quite unlike other Elves? and it?s hinted that she quite likes the dwarves (or is, at least, intrigued by them).
- The wood elves give chase through the forest when the dwarves escape in barrels, but don?t follow them out of the forest.
- Except for Tauriel, who does follow then to Lake-town (defying Thranduil) and Legolas who decides to follow Tauriel (because he?s ?very protective of her?).
- Bard has three children: Bain, Sigrid and Tilda 
- Gandalf may do some of the following in Dol Guldur: unlock a gate; see things that aren?t really there/things appear other than they are; cast a spell making it look like there?s more than one of him; cast a protection spell; have to work out where to walk as there are trick stones that lead to traps. _(i`m loling hard at this one -  fucking RPG)_
- Lastly, there?s a suggestion that Smaug is also looking for the Arkenstone. 




more


----------



## Amanda (Sep 3, 2013)

gershwin said:


> There are also some spoilers from The Hobbit Annual
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Eru almighty

This is utterly and completely unforgivable. 

Just...

No. No no no.

Peter Jackson, I'm tired of giving you my benefit of doubt when you always let me down. Not sure any more if I will even see this in the theater. Might rent it later.

I'll go read Silmarillion and cry myself to sleep.


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 3, 2013)

I am honestly expecting to be disappointed with the movie because of with the changes from source material. Granted, it won't suck as bad as Star Wars Prequels because Jackson knows how to make movies but I still feel it's going to disappoint me. I hope I'm wrong though.

But I am interested to see how well is that new character Tauriel performing in the movie and how will her storyline be. (And she's damn hot duh! I think I like her looks more than Arwen lol.) But since she is supposed to have a lovestory, so I hope for Morgoth's sake it doesn't seem forced in the movie. I hope for best and fear for worst.

My thoughts of the first Hobbit movie? It wasn't bad but it wasn't awesome either. Peter failed in mixing the light hearted version and that more serious style from Lord of the Rings. He should have kept the first movie light hearted and move towards more seriousness in the next ones. I think Desolation of Smaug would be perfect to be that "dark middle part of the opera" with the Necromancer and the Mirkwood.

And I didn't care much for how he completely contradicted Tolkien's material with the Nazgul.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 3, 2013)

Sauron said:


> I am honestly expecting to be disappointed with the movie because of with the changes from source material.



It's the changes to characterization that are the worst. The only good changes PJ has done are with Thorin and Boromir, but everyone else... Denethor and Radagast have suffered worst thus far, and now it seems like Thranduil will go that same way. Ok Radagast didn't have that much characterization to begin with, but that only adds an insult to the injury; they could have done almost anything with him, and this is what they came up with.

The last movie wasn't even so lame because the source material was changed - personally I was excited to see the Dol Guldur & White Council subplots - but that it simply was a bad film in itself. 



Sauron said:


> And I didn't care much for how he completely contradicted Tolkien's material with the Nazgul.



Don't bring that up. The stupid green Nazg?l was so... argh. I was expecting the Ghostbusters to come and save the day.


----------



## gershwin (Sep 3, 2013)

To be honest, PJ is staying almost true to canon with Thranduil. He did want his share of gold though the money conflict was kind of subtle. Its just PJ is so blatant with everything and already changed motives for Thorin`s journey (noble king who wants his home back instead of just gold) so in comparison with him Thranduil will look like a douchebag 

I`m not realy against changes though since i never was a big fan of the original book. Tauriel is the only thing that bothers me - actress said that her character will be active only till the battle of 5 armies. So i hope maybe she dies and that will force Thranduil to make a move (who is even the main elf in this story now? lol)


----------



## Amanda (Sep 3, 2013)

But in the book Thranduil had a legit reason to imprison the Dwarves - they trespassed in his kingdom causing trouble and refused to explain themselves. Now he's imprisoning them because they don't share the gold with him - gold he has no rightful claim to. And in the book it was made clear that while Thranduil is as fond of the glittery stuff as anyone, he's one of the few characters that actually doesn't let his greed to guide his actions. Unlike Thorin and Bard, he was *not* ready to start a war over the treasure. Also in the books Thranduil is ultimately a noble person, but who's traumatized by the sufferings his family and people have had to go through because of Sauron. It's the classic Good Is Not Nice antihero behavior, but understanding such subtlety has been too much to ask of PJ in the past too. He doesn't trust the audience to get anything that isn't fed to them with an anvil, and reduces complex characters into caricatures.

PJ is trying to make the Dwarves (and Thorin especially) more sympathetic, but he's making it in his own clumsy way of degrading others. Not appreciated. I've actually loved this character for ten years now and was looking forwards to him more than perhaps anything else. So I'm sorry, but I gotta rage about this.


----------



## gershwin (Sep 4, 2013)

Amanda said:


> But in the book Thranduil had a legit reason to imprison the Dwarves - they trespassed in his kingdom causing trouble and refused to explain themselves. Now he's imprisoning them because they don't share the gold with him - gold he has no rightful claim to.


True, PJ is exaggerating Thranduil`s weaknesses but i see where he is coming from. After the elven king learned about everything he said  "_No treasure will come back through Mirkwood without my having something to say in the matter_" It very well can be interpretated as him doing something what movie!Thranduil will do if he knew from the get go. And thats exactly what dwarves actualy expected - thats why they kept silence. On the other hand  - yes, Thrandul`s greed doesn`t blind him as he is willing to help people later and if i recall correctly, Bilbo was rather impressed by him (?). Well, at least his role is bigger than in the book since he gets if not more screentime but more character development 

About loose adaptation  - look at this one 

[YOUTUBE]UBnVL1Y2src[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Sep 4, 2013)

Yes yes, you might be right. Forgive me that rant, I'm angry because I'm scared, and I'm scared because I'm emotionally invested in these characters and don't entirely trust PJ because of past experiences... let's see where this takes us.


----------



## gershwin (Sep 4, 2013)

^its totaly understandable, especially when PJ openly admits that he realy loves to deviate from canon 

Tolkien fandom  at this point is laughing ist way through. Found this in someone`s sig on TORN forums:



> The Thorin: An Unexpected Rewrite, December 2012
> The Tauriel: Desolation of Canon, December 2013
> The Radagast: 'Gandalf are we there yet?' December 2014
> 
> ...


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 30, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _New banner_ 








It appears the newest trailer will come out tomorrow.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 30, 2013)

gershwin said:


> ^its totaly understandable, especially when PJ openly admits that he realy loves to deviate from canon
> 
> Tolkien fandom  at this point is laughing ist way through. Found this in someone`s sig on TORN forums:



:rofl those made laugh.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 30, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _New banner_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



How sad it is I don't even want to watch it, because it's bound to just make me angry.


----------



## Khyle (Oct 1, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]mbOEknbi4gQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 1, 2013)

Smaug's voice. I approve  And I think I saw a glimpse of Eye of Sauron aswell.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 1, 2013)

Before being able to view this with the audio: it looks good. I can hope again.


----------



## Vaeny (Oct 1, 2013)

Damn, that looks great.


----------



## Bleach (Oct 1, 2013)

That was a pretty awesome trailer. I think I'll enjoy it more than the first movie!


----------



## Amanda (Oct 1, 2013)

And now with the audio. Yes, better. 

I've set my expectation so low it doesn't even need to be loyal to the book, just be a decent movie.


----------



## Taleran (Oct 1, 2013)

Yes exactly what the movie needed Legolas Love Plot.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Oct 1, 2013)

Amanda said:


> And now with the audio. Yes, better.
> 
> I've set my expectation so low it doesn't even need to be loyal to the book, j*ust be a decent movie.*





The first one was MORE than decent; it was a great movie. This one will most likely even be better because the plot is more solid and events more epic.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 1, 2013)

Taleran said:


> Yes exactly what the movie needed Legolas Love Plot.



PJ has confirmed long ago Legolas and Tauriel will not be romantically involved. Thranduil's line smells to me a rather obvious Trailer Always Lies moment: Thranduil's lines sound like they're from two separate scenes, and the hope he's speaking of is quite likely hope in fight against enemy. He doesn't want Tauriel to encourage Legolas to do reckless, useless things such as seek alliances outside their own community.

However, it's still possible Tauriel has romance or romantic undertones with Kili, for example.


----------



## Blunt (Oct 1, 2013)

Just watched the trailer. Holy crap, that's Benedict Cumberpatch's voice as Smaug?!


----------



## PikaCheeka (Oct 2, 2013)

If anyone can find me information on what orchestra plays the first half of that trailer, that would be awesome. It sounds like Two Steps but it's too early for me to find the info, I think...

Anyway looks good. The Tauriel shit I am not pleased with but I've had over a year to adjust to her existence now. Didn't Jackson vehemently deny it being a love plot or did I make that up because I wanted it that badly?


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 2, 2013)

blunt said:


> Just watched the trailer. Holy crap, that's Benedict Cumberpatch's voice as Smaug?!



Yep. He plays the Necromancer as well. Not just the voice but the CGI motion capture for both, similar to Andy Serkis as Gollum.


----------



## John Sheppard (Oct 2, 2013)

That voice is legendary.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 2, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> Anyway looks good. The Tauriel shit I am not pleased with but I've had over a year to adjust to her existence now. Didn't Jackson vehemently deny it being a love plot or did I make that up because I wanted it that badly?




PJ denied there being any love story _between Legolas and Tauriel_. That he didn't say "there's no love story at all" is telling enough. 

Also Tauriel's predecessor, Itaril, had a love story in the original casting call, and an OC male elf character created just to be her lover, so... It's rather certain there's going to be some romantic elements involved. We can only hope the strong negative fan feedback has made them tone it done, and it will mostly end up into the Extended Editions.


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 2, 2013)

I remember reading from theonering.net that Tauriel would have a romance plot with Thranduil or one of the dwarfs. But definitely not Legolas.


----------



## Blunt (Oct 2, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> Yep. He plays the Necromancer as well. Not just the voice but the CGI motion capture for both, similar to Andy Serkis as Gollum.


It doesn't sound anything like him, kudos to him I guess.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 2, 2013)

Sauron said:


> I remember reading from theonering.net that Tauriel would have a romance plot with Thranduil or one of the dwarfs. But definitely not Legolas.




Yes, apparently Thranduil is very affectionate about her, but she's curious about the Dwarves and the life outside the forest... Idk. 

You know, it's not a bad thing they're fleshing out the Mirkwood Elves (and the other peoples). Thranduil being an isolationist and suspicious towards the other races is perfectly in keeping with canon. So are Elven lady warriors. And Tolkien himself was fond of love stories. That's all cool. It will depend on the execution of things.

However, I hope the impression I'm getting of her is wrong. It'd be really annoying if she was some holier-than-thou who makes the canon characters look bad by her superiority, and is just there to berate Thranduil and Legolas for their personal flaws (which she herself doesn't have.) We haven't seen the movie yet so it's premature to judge her, but my God, if they bash Thranduil, make Legolas just a weak parrot following his dad's bigotry, and let Tauriel to be the one to correct them all the time.... ARGH!

Dammit, I actually *want* to like her, at least not to hate her.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 2, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _More banners_ 









Liked the trailer too. Benedict's voice works well, I guess they don't want to show Smaug talking on camera yet. Save it for the film itself.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 2, 2013)

Thanks, Sennin!

Of course Orlando Bloom is now a decade older, but the way they portray the character somehow _feels_ older too. He's so... serious, and looks tired. In FotR he was very light and youthful. Perhaps in this retcon it's because he has left the forest and is excited to go on an adventure in the great wide world.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 4, 2013)

And we have Beorn

[sp][/sp]


With eyebrows and sideburns that impressive, shouldn't he have more chest hair...?


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 4, 2013)

Hmm, I didn't expect Beorn to look like that. Like Hagrid but human size.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 4, 2013)

Beorn looks hot 


Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _More banners_



Wtf? Another Grima?


----------



## Amanda (Oct 4, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Beorn looks hot




It's , he'd be hot in a chicken suit. 




gershwin said:


> Wtf? Another Grima?




That would be Alfrid, the Master's "Gr?ma". Part of fleshing out of these new cultures we meet.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 4, 2013)

To anyone who's read the book, how major is the battle with the Mirkwood spiders supposed to be? Last time I saw anything good with giant spiders was Harry Potter so I'm really excited for this


----------



## Amanda (Oct 4, 2013)

The fight with the spiders is different in the books, where it's just Bilbo and the Dwarves fighting them, but apparently in the movie the Elves will join. I guess PJ will make it bigger, like he has sized up everything in this book>movie conversion.

However, if you're talking about the _significance_ of the spiders... in the book they're indeed important for the plot, for Bilbo's character development, for the atmosphere and the setting. 

Though, they're exclusive to Mirkwood, so you'll be seeing them when the Company travels through Mirkwood during the early part of DoS, and perhaps [sp]when Gandalf investigates Dol Guldur / the White Council attacks it.[/sp]


----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Oct 5, 2013)

Swarmy said:


> Last time I saw anything good with giant spiders was Harry Potter so I'm really excited for this


No love for Shelob, eh?


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 5, 2013)

Dragonus Nesha said:


> No love for Shelob, eh?



She could have been done better even though I like how she was based on one of the creepiest spider species we know of o


----------



## Pilaf (Oct 13, 2013)

You think Shelob was bad, wait until they do a movie adaptation of _Silmarillion_. She got it from her mama.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Oct 13, 2013)

I have seen the trailer for the next film, and it looks to be very awesome, indeed. I can completely understand Smaug not being shown in great detail in the trailer, to maintain an aura of suspense and mystery around him. I plan to see this film with my friends and perhaps my family, also, since my father is a major fan of Tolkien, so I am very excited, indeed, for it.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 15, 2013)

Pilaf said:


> You think Shelob was bad, wait until they do a movie adaptation of _Silmarillion_. She got it from her mama.





I knew about Ungoliant before I even knew what Silmarillion was  One of the benefits to have friends who love telling you were you can find giant monstrous bugs


----------



## santanico (Oct 15, 2013)

Benny's voice


----------



## Amanda (Oct 15, 2013)

starr said:


> Benny's voice




Those who have seen the trailer in theaters say his voice sounds even better there.


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 16, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Those who have seen the trailer in theaters say his voice sounds even better there.



Well with proper bass equipment sure.

I am interested to hear if Necromancer will also speak since Benedict is also voicing him. Or is he just voicing some black speech words like they did for Sauron in Lord of the Rings.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 16, 2013)

Huge new banner


Also, :

*Spoiler*: __ 





> 1. The introduction? in the scene where even the Elves come to pay homage to the Arkenstone, they show the scene with Thranduil approaching the throne. The new part is that Thror motions for a dwarf to bring forward a big chest of gorgeous jewels, which he presents to Thranduil. Thranduil looks entranced, and reaches for the gems, but the dwarf cruelly closes the lid before Thranduil can reach it.
> [I suspect this is where a lot of Thranduil?s animosity toward dwarves comes from!]
> 2. In Bilbo?s introduction, ?this is where I come in?? and there?s a flashback scene to a party in the Shire (likely one of the Old Took?s midsummer parties), with Gandalf setting off lovely fireworks. A small hobbit boy comes running up to Gandalf and starts batting at him playfully, trying to catch his sleeves. The boy is young Bilbo, and we see his mother Belladonna come running after him to tell him to stop before embracing Gandalf as an old friend. [I don?t remember who plays Belladona, but she?s lovely? dark hair in curls. I looked in the credits to see who was listed, but didn?t recognize the name and didn?t have a pen to write it down with.]
> 3. After Gandalf meets Bilbo on the front bench, Bilbo goes into Hobbiton to buy himself his supper. He?s suspiciously looking everywhere to make sure Gandalf isn?t still around, as he buys his fish and talks to a neighbor. It?s actually a very funny scene, because he sees a gray hat-shaped form behind a wall and runs for it to avoid Gandalf, but it?s actually just another Hobbit carrying a tall load
> ...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 16, 2013)

Like Smaug's voice, hoping he brings out more of the magnificent bastard aspect of the character.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 16, 2013)

That banner only reaches till their arrival to the Lake Town? 

Not going to say anything about the new scenes... they need to be seen to determine how good additions they are. But I was hoping for some character establishing with the Dwarves, instead of more "lol Dwarves are so working glass and the Elves are such elitist snobs" humor.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 16, 2013)

Kili is flirting with elves. Foreshadowing Kili/Tauriel romance


----------



## ice77 (Oct 16, 2013)

*Peter Jackson just had to milk it with this one didn't he? 

I mean seriously why couldn't he just made 2 movies instead of 3? Why try to make this one into another LOTR trilogy? 

I sure enjoyed The Hobbit as much as the next guy but seriously know your limits.*


----------



## gershwin (Oct 18, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Also, :



And someone posted screencaps already 

1
2
3
4
5
6
7


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 19, 2013)

The latest trailer gave me a better look at the Mirkwood spiders and I was surprised to see that they resemble some orb-weaving species while Shelob in LotR is based on a funnel-web spider (disregarding the sting and mouth ofcourse). I thought they were supposed to be related to her...


----------



## Amanda (Oct 19, 2013)

Yes, they're her offspring... their fathers are also her offspring... 

But as these are supposed to be more arboreal spiders who move fast in the trees, it's understandable they didn't design them to be robust cave dwelling tanks like her. Let's use the fantasy card?


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 19, 2013)

They might have just gone with wolf spiders if they want faster but still looking close to their mother, then again the Harry Potter series used giant wolf spiders so I can see why they wanted to use something more "original".

Where do the giant spiders originate from anyway, I know Ungoliant was the first and one of her numerous offspring is Shelob but with whom did Ungoliant mate to produce them?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 19, 2013)

I think she mated with some great spiders. Ungoliant herself is an unknown as to whether she's a Valar or something else entirely.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 19, 2013)

I see, so the great spiders existed alongside Ungoliant and weren't decended from her?

Also how certain is Ungoliant's demise, all I could find on her (haven't read anything other than part of LotR so bare with me) was that she basically devoured herself


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 19, 2013)

Like I said, we don't know where Ungoliant came from or what she is, it's implied she comes from the void and has webbing that can confuse gods. Those Great Spiders were probably created by Morgoth/Melkor a fallen god and former master of Sauron. 

But my lore is rusty so someone with better memory could help.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 19, 2013)

Interesting, I can't wait until the day that she finally crawls on the big screen though that won't be soon...


----------



## Amanda (Oct 19, 2013)

Ungoliant's origin is indeed a mystery even to the inhabitants of Middle-Earth. Perhaps she's a fallen spirit/angel like Sauron and the Balrog, perhaps she's a manifestation of the darkness itself. After she left the western lands of Middle-Earth she vanished into the unknown south. There's two contradicting accounts of her final fate; apparently "some people" say she in her endless hunger ate herself (but this could well be nothing but a tale), while one story sketch says she was killed by E?rendil (Elrond's father and a legendary mariner) during one of his voyages. 

It seems like not all spiders are related to Ungoliant, who as said is of unique kind of abysmal monster. In Middle-Earth there are both mundane animals and supernatural evil beings that take the form of a normal animal. For example there are normal wolves, and evil spirits that take the form of a wolf, called werewolves in-universe. We also know that supernatural and mundane beings can reproduce if the supernatural is incarnated in a body of flesh; Melian and Thingol had a daughter. 

I'd say there existed a breed of extraordinary large spiders before Ungoliant's coming. Perhaps they were made by Melkor from some other, pre-existing animals the same way wolves were made by Melkor from dogs (contradictory to our world) and Orcs were corrupted from humanoids, possibly Elves. 

Ungoliant then mated with some of these giant spiders, producing ungodly offspring that aren't pure spiders but have peculiar characteristics. We know that Shelob, Ungoliant's direct descant, had a stinger and possibly compound eyes. Shelob's offspring, the spiders of Mirkwood, also have stingers. (In the movie Shelob has eye clusters like normal spiders.)


----------



## Aging Boner (Oct 19, 2013)

saw this in 48fps...totally detracted from muh imershun.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 20, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Ungoliant's origin is indeed a mystery even to the inhabitants of Middle-Earth. Perhaps she's a fallen spirit/angel like Sauron and the Balrog, perhaps she's a manifestation of the darkness itself. After she left the western lands of Middle-Earth she vanished into the unknown south. There's two contradicting accounts of her final fate; apparently "some people" say she in her endless hunger ate herself (but this could well be nothing but a tale), while one story sketch says she was killed by E?rendil (Elrond's father and a legendary mariner) during one of his voyages.
> 
> It seems like not all spiders are related to Ungoliant, who as said is of unique kind of abysmal monster. In Middle-Earth there are both mundane animals and supernatural evil beings that take the form of a normal animal. For example there are normal wolves, and evil spirits that take the form of a wolf, called werewolves in-universe. We also know that supernatural and mundane beings can reproduce if the supernatural is incarnated in a body of flesh; Melian and Thingol had a daughter.
> 
> ...



I see that clarifies it well


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Oct 20, 2013)

48 fps was great , i look forward to the use of this technology in other movies.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 20, 2013)




----------



## Amanda (Oct 21, 2013)

Almost surreal, I've wanted to see Mirkwood on the silver screen for over a decade now...

Also, I'm now very pleased with the way PJ handled the backstory of the feud between Dwarves and Elves. First Michael Martinez pointed out PJ doesn't have the rights to Silmarillion and therefore he doesn't have the rights to the canonical backstory, but that he still wants to keep Tolkien's spirit in giving all societies their background anyway. Secondly, the spoilers for Extended Edition reveal they found a way to get past their lack of rights to Silm. 


*Spoiler*: _Screencaps_ 












That's a direct reference to Thingol's story, without mentioning any names and places. Lovely! And it continues with the Thingol = Thranduil connection so dear to me. Thanks PJ, taking some ugly words back now.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 21, 2013)

^ video of the same scene


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 21, 2013)

Those images of Thranduil's facial expressions are hilarious(I foresee people editing text in that scene) but love that scene and the music, say what you will about PJ's LOTR movies, they have great music and an epic feel.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 21, 2013)

Scenes from Rivendell

[YOUTUBE]F96ojmLYcZQ[/YOUTUBE]


Goblin Town 

[YOUTUBE]Z1vwsOsI5Cw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Liverbird (Oct 21, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


>



not an official poster, it's from a


----------



## Amanda (Oct 21, 2013)

@ gershwin

Naked Dwarves swimming. Where are the little hairy women?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 28, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _Empire Magazine cover_ 















*Spoiler*: _Stephen Fry as the 'Master of Laketown_ 









Beorn:




And now more pictures:


*Spoiler*: __ 









*character limit*


----------



## Amanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Thanks, Sennin!

These covers are clearly darker and edgier than those of the first film.

But why is there a bald eagle on the first cover? :rofl


----------



## gershwin (Oct 28, 2013)

I thought its headless at first :S


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 28, 2013)

You're welcome! But there are more pics:


*Spoiler*: __ 
















*character limit*


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 28, 2013)

*Spoiler*: __ 












They sure don't want to show an explicit and straightforward picture of Smaug. That must be left for the whole movie itself.

EDIT:  .


----------



## Amanda (Oct 28, 2013)

Everything expect human!Beorn looks good. Especially Lake Town, Dale and Erebor - they really did something very right with those design. 

Too bad I'm 24'd, will rep you later!


----------



## Ninian (Oct 28, 2013)

thanks for the pictures Sennin.​


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 30, 2013)

International posters in Spanish:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 3, 2013)




----------



## gershwin (Nov 3, 2013)

Thanks!

Thorin poster is the most awesome 
I noticed poster with Legolas has the most "likes" on facebook already. It seems they were right to give him role in the movie. Since he is _still _so popular with audience


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 3, 2013)

He is a fangirl magnet.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 4, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _Another poster_ 








Well Smaug appears there, kinda.


----------



## gershwin (Nov 4, 2013)

NEW TRAILER!!!!

[YOUTUBE]lfflhfn1W-o[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Without wanting to insult anyone who liked the first film, I'm hoping the next two will bring this franchise back to LotR's level. The trailers are encouraging, as is the fact that PJ always said AUJ would be the merriest one, and from there things would progressively get more serious, until by the end of TABA the atmosphere would be the same as at the beginning of FotR.

While I like light-hearted adventure as much as anyone, it just seems dark epic plays more into PJ's strengths.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 5, 2013)

I don't know why but more and more I believe this movie will disappoint me even more than the first one. Maybe it's just all the added stuff that wasn't in the book.


----------



## Aging Boner (Nov 5, 2013)

movie needs to be in 60fps, 48fps was just to slow for me to keep up.

also, why don't the dwarves use guns? seems like a more efficient way for shorties to kill stuff.

and I'm assuming the difference between a dwarf and a hobbit is that hobbits don't grow beards; they should probably explain this better.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 5, 2013)

Sauron said:


> I don't know why but more and more I believe this movie will disappoint me even more than the first one. Maybe it's just all the added stuff that wasn't in the book.




What bothers me is how PJ can't stay on topic. AUJ had a good story, imo, but it got forgotten all the time because of all kinds of unnecessary side-adventures. In the end many things happened, but the story itself hadn't progressed enough to deserve a movie of its own.



Aging Boner said:


> also, why don't the dwarves use guns? seems like a more efficient way for shorties to kill stuff.




I know you're joking, but I want to answer this seriously. 

You hit the nerve with the words "efficient way to kill". Tolkien was a WW1 veteran. He hated the faceless, mechanical, technical aspect of the war, the way people were murdered en masse from afar with bombs, bulldozed with tanks and roasted with flamethrowers. In his imagination, the heroic people always fight with swords, spears, axes and the like, making the battle personal. Usage of mechanic devices "to kill as many people as easily as possible" is reserved for the baddies. In certain drafts of the Silmarillion there are mechanical dragons that carry troops of Orcs in their bellies, in LotR Saruman uses gun powder to make a bomb, and in the Hobbit it's especially mentioned the Orcs have little of culture to speak of in other matters, but are very advanced when it comes to militaristic innovations.

What I try to say is that Tolkien was very _dissapointed in_ the modern warfare; in the way how it industrialized death. Of course he had no personal experience of historic warfare. But this isn't trying to say that decapitating people with swords is more civilized than blowing them up with bombs. It's just to say that Tolkien was traumatized by his experiences, and those experiences were specifically about the modern kind of war. 

If you read his stories about Middle-Earth, they are almost always either about war, or at least set during time of armed conflict. He really had the need to write about the subject. But he channeled it to historic kind of warfare, where men engage into one-on-one swords fights and leaders lead their troops personally from the front. 

(By the way, Tolkien wasn't a pacifist. He believed there are fights that have to be fought, and wars that have to be waged. WW1 was a stupid, unnecessary war that ended millions of lives for the sake of nationalistic egos. WW2 had to be fought to save Europe from Fascism.)



Aging Boner said:


> and I'm assuming the difference between a dwarf and a hobbit is that hobbits don't grow beards; they should probably explain this better.




The real difference is that Hobbits are actually just one of the races of the human species, while Dwarves are entirely disconnected from our family tree.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 5, 2013)

Sauron said:


> I don't know why but more and more I believe this movie will disappoint me even more than the first one. Maybe it's just all the added stuff that wasn't in the book.



Firstly, I loved the first one and I didn't think it was disappointing at all. Now, I think the upcoming one will be MUCH MUCH better. Not only because its going to be darker but also because of the introduction of characters like Beorn. Furthermore, it has the battle of five armies which I know nobody will be complaining about when it hits.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 5, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Firstly, I loved the first one and I didn't think it was disappointing at all. Now, I think the upcoming one will be MUCH MUCH better. Not only because its going to be darker but also because of the introduction of characters like Beorn. Furthermore, it has the battle of five armies which I know nobody will be complaining about when it hits.




Glad to hear you enjoyed AUJ, and are looking forwards to DOS. However, the Battle of Five Armies will be in TABA, which premiers in summer 2014!


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Nov 5, 2013)

i like part 1, it's humourous and has some charm, i can watch it over and over  i sort of hope they can retain some of that light heartedness in balance as they raise the stakes and seriousness.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 5, 2013)

I consider PJ's movies to be fun and enjoyable, they don't come close to the awesome of the original source material but if you think of this as LOTR or Hobbit in name only and enjoy the movie for what it is i.e great fantasy adventure in it's own right popcorn flick then it's enjoyable.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 6, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Firstly, I loved the first one and I didn't think it was disappointing at all. Now, I think the upcoming one will be MUCH MUCH better. Not only because its going to be darker but also because of the introduction of characters like Beorn. Furthermore, it has the battle of five armies which I know nobody will be complaining about when it hits.



Beorn is one of the things I think this movie will disappoint me, he doesn't look anything like how he was described and how I imagined him.

And then there's the fact that this character Tauriel who doesn't even appear in the books is playing a so big part in the movie it seems. 
Somehow I get the feeling that maybe PJ is just putting too much irrelevant stuff to the movie.

Ps. Desolation of Smaug won't have the battle of the five armies, it will be in the 3rd movie.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 6, 2013)

Sauron said:


> Beorn is one of the things I think this movie will disappoint me, he doesn't look anything like how he was described and how I imagined him.




Usually I don't mind things looking different than I had imagined in my own head, because of course the director isn't making the movie for me, and bases the designs on his own imagination, and the imagination of his artist team. Often those professionals come up with designs much better than what I had pictured in my head! 

But unfortunately Beorn doesn't seem to be such case. His hair and his costume... what was PJ thinking? In this franchise, even the nasties are a pleasure to watch. Sauron and the Nazg?ls are gothic wonders. Beorn... not so. I'm hoping it looks better on the silver screen, but even more I'm hoping we'll see him as a bear more often than as a man.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 6, 2013)

Sauron said:


> Beorn is one of the things I think this movie will disappoint me, he doesn't look anything like how he was described and how I imagined him.



Bro there is like one picture on him and it doesn't look too bad. I'm expecting him to be amazing because Peter Jackson has praised his choice of actor. He stated that as soon as the actor auditioned he knew that he would make the perfect beorn. So im going to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. Besides, looks aren't everything, lets see how he interacts.



> And then there's the fact that this character Tauriel who doesn't even appear in the books is playing a so big part in the movie it seems


. 

Yeah bro this is really stupid. I'm with you on this one.



> Ps. Desolation of Smaug won't have the battle of the five armies, it will be in the 3rd movie.



Err what? Are you sure about this? The trailer showed the battle. Also, the movie was SUPPOSED to be called; "The Hobbit: The battle of the five armies". So i think it would be pretty stupid for the battle not to be included; especially because if its not, it would have to be in the BEGINNING of the next movie which would just be terrible.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 6, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Err what? Are you sure about this? The trailer showed the battle. Also, the movie was SUPPOSED to be called; "The Hobbit: The battle of the five armies". So i think it would be pretty stupid for the battle not to be included; especially because if its not, it would have to be in the BEGINNING of the next movie which would just be terrible.



It's common sense that the big battle will appear on the final film. What else could there be in it? And it most definitely won't be in the beginning of the movie, most likely in the middle, like how siege of Minas Tirith was.

And the trailers haven't shown any scenes from the battle of the five armies? Or what scenes are you referring to?


----------



## Amanda (Nov 6, 2013)

The Battle of the Five Armies is the Grande Finale of this movie series. Surely it will be the highlight of There And Back Again.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 6, 2013)

More posters:


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 7, 2013)

Sauron said:


> It's common sense that the big battle will appear on the final film. What else could there be in it? And it most definitely won't be in the beginning of the movie, most likely in the middle, like how siege of Minas Tirith was.
> 
> And the trailers haven't shown any scenes from the battle of the five armies? Or what scenes are you referring to?





			
				amanda said:
			
		

> The Battle of the Five Armies is the Grande Finale of this movie series. Surely it will be the highlight of There And Back Again



yeah i think you guys are confused. There and Back Again is supposed to be after the events that took place in the hobbit.

The battle being in the third movie would be absolutely ridiculous. The desolation of smaug takes place in this movie and that battle of the five armies is right after it. So it would have to be in the beginning of the third one which wouldn't happen.


----------



## Khyle (Nov 7, 2013)

It's pretty obvious the battle wll happen in There and Back Again.


----------



## gershwin (Nov 7, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> yeah i think you guys are confused. There and Back Again is supposed to be after the events that took place in the hobbit.


What even makes you think so?  Battle in 3rd movie is confirmed and talked about by actors and PJ. Desolation of Smaug ends with Smaug either rampaging on Esgaroth or getting killed off.


----------



## martryn (Nov 7, 2013)

If the Battle of the Five Armies took place in the second movie, what the fuck would go in the 3rd?  The obvious stopping place in the second movie is the death of Smaug, with the lead-up to the third movie being Erebor under siege by the elves and men or some shit.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 7, 2013)

Yeah, Battle of the Five Armies and also probably the Necromancer being driven out from Dol Guldur will be in the 3rd film.

There's no way that the big battle will happen in the second part of the trilogy.  Second movie will most likely end with Smaug's death.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 7, 2013)

lol thats pretty lame, i thought it was going to be in the second one. But i guess its better this way because they can concentrate on the battle more.


----------



## Swarmy (Nov 7, 2013)




----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 8, 2013)

It looks like the mouth of Predator.


----------



## Swarmy (Nov 8, 2013)

Lol good eye


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 8, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _Banner_ 








They all seemed to be composed, IMO, of personal character posters. As new ones we haven't seen yet. Could be wrong.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Nov 11, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> yeah i think you guys are confused. There and Back Again is supposed to be after the events that took place in the hobbit.
> 
> The battle being in the third movie would be absolutely ridiculous. The desolation of smaug takes place in this movie and that battle of the five armies is right after it. So it would have to be in the beginning of the third one which wouldn't happen.



Considering how much junk PJ added to these films, I'm sure he will find something to put in at the beginning of the third movie to give some padding between Smaug at the end of the second, and the battle which will probably take place in the middle of the third. Maybe some Necromancer stuff, or he might drag the Pale Orc subplot into the final movie. 

You really can't make strict "by the book" arguments for these movies, seeing as only maybe 35% of the movie content is even in the book.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 11, 2013)

Azog is a good example of the above.


----------



## gershwin (Nov 11, 2013)

The scene of elves interrogating poor orc.

ComicBookResources


----------



## Nimander (Nov 11, 2013)

gershwin said:


> NEW TRAILER!!!!
> 
> [YOUTUBE]lfflhfn1W-o[/YOUTUBE]



Holy shit, my body is ready.

I myself am enough of a lover of books that I hate when a movie version too strongly deviates from the original content. This is why there has rarely been a book/series that I've seen the movie version of where I didn't like the book better. 

But.

The LotR was one of the few exceptions where I honestly loved the movies more than the books themselves. Mainly because of what Jackson brought to the screen. The style of the characters and architecture. The music able to evoke the right emotions at the right times. And overall, the feel of truly plunging into a world entirely different from our own, and being carried along on the tale being told and acted out by the characters on screen. 

In the end, I suppose I liked the movies because Jackson managed to bring to life a world that only really could be conceptualized in my imagination, and did an even better job than my imagination could. And, in my personal opinion at least, nothing that he's added to any of the movies so far has really taken away from the story itself, only added or clarified. 

So, my two cents on this at least. I cannot wait to watch this, not only because of the movie itself, but because I'll be watching it over my Christmas break when I'll actually be free of the black hole my life currently is in the military. So I could very much use an escape of sorts, and DoS seems like it'll make for a perfect one.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 11, 2013)

New banner:



That Tauriel and Legolas clip is also in there in the link but in low quality.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 13, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _New banner_


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 14, 2013)

Another new poster:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## gershwin (Nov 14, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _New banner_



 I am afraid to go to imax because of that. Fucking spiders in 3D


----------



## Swarmy (Nov 14, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _New banner_



Sweet


----------



## Khyle (Nov 14, 2013)

I finally laid my hands on the DVDs for An Unexpected Journey - Extended Cut.

Can't wait to watch it. I hope it was worth the wait.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 14, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _New stills_


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 15, 2013)

Just watched the extended editions of Unexpected Jorney, have to say I prefer the theatre version as none of the added scenes make the movie any better unlike in Lord of the Rings. In my opinion of course.

One glad thing I can say is though that the movie is in 1 disc only when LOTR was splitted in two.

I think the most interesting added scenes were when Bilbo was wandering around the Rivendell and when the White Coucil talked about the seven rings of power that were given to the dwarves. Otherwise the added scenes were just "meh" in my opinion.


----------



## gershwin (Nov 15, 2013)

I loved funny scenes with dwarves and Goblin`s song. But they are not necessary indeed. 
I would left Thranduil/treasures scene, since it kinda explains source of conflict betwen dwarves and elves. Theatrical version only left people confused about this.  
And also dialogue betwen Elrond and Gandalf about Thorin followed by his reaction. The acting is great and it is a good foreshadowing of upcoming dragon sickness.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 16, 2013)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 18, 2013)

*Spoiler*: _New poster showing Bilbo_


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 19, 2013)

More posters:






[YOUTUBE]ri7_r0knfBI[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 22, 2013)

I believe this Empire Magazine cover is new:


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 1, 2013)

We finally have a look at Smaug:


*Spoiler*: __ 









[YOUTUBE]EyxCXHVUmgA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 1, 2013)

I'm sure in the first film and teasers for the new one, he was blue.

I'm glad he's red. He's supposed to be red.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 1, 2013)

^ he allways was red 
Cant rep, Sennin, but thanks for posting!


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 1, 2013)

I KNOW WHAT I SAW!


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 1, 2013)

Okay, just watched it on DVD. At the end the glimpse we see of Smaug is bluish-red. Which is me saying_ I was right_.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 1, 2013)

Only partily right since obviously it was just a reflection and not a color of skin


----------



## Bart (Dec 2, 2013)

Oh my god I'm back everyone 

And I need to alter my OP asap ~

*Responses on Twitter on Desolation for Smaug*

"I did like the movie! Great acting! Good action! The movie really moved." 


Early screening of @TheHobbitMovie DOS w/@DavisAllsop tonight! Action packed, looked amazing, interesting plot departures, ended on cliffhanger 


Saw HOBBIT this weekend. Believe it: absolute masterpiece. Best of the LOTR series. Stunning. STUNNING. 
@Hendyhendel: @somebadideas @JimJarmuschHair ROTK is the best, though Two Towers has killer moments & FOTR is the most fun. 1st HOBBIT = way dull. 


"Excellent action scenes designing, good pace, stunning VFX, most beautiful movie of the year." 


More reviews will be posted as the film has been screening for around 2 days now, with it's premiere tonight in LA :WOW

*P.S. ANYONE POSTING IMAGES SPOILER TAG THEM OR THEY'LL BE DELETED FROM THE THREAD ~*


----------



## Jαmes (Dec 2, 2013)

i cannot wait to see this.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 2, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> We finally have a look at Smaug:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __




Oooh, he looks really good. Very reptilian and very Tolkienian. And he's reddish! I'm happy. 



Sennin of Hardwork said:


> More posters:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __




Whatever else the movie will be like, it will have such beautiful visuals. And even more importantly: new beautiful visuals. Not just Shire, Rivendell and Misty Mountains which we have already seen in LotR, but wholly new environments. 



Bart said:


> *Responses on Twitter on Desolation for Smaug*
> 
> "I did like the movie! Great acting! Good action! The movie really moved."
> 
> ...




*fingers crossed*

I want to hear news of it being well paced, entertaining and touching.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 3, 2013)

all responses are extremly positive so far


> Review of Desolation of Smaug: PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT PERFECT





> : So, um...guys? DESOLATION OF SMAUG is f****** awesome.
> 
> It's basically a three hour action movie. Smaug is incredible. The last hour is basically Jurassic Park in Middle Earth.





> : So... I saw the world premiere of #TheDesolationOfSmaug and WOOOOOW... I loved it. My 2nd favorite of the whole franchise. Smaug was INSANE.
> That dragon freak'n ROCKED. The movie was already great outside of that, but Benedict put it to a WHOLE new level of badass.





> : Also.. SMAUG!!!!!! YES!!!! "I Am DEATH" #BenedictCumberbatch is a ****ing wonder. The Necromancer.. Perfection. He deserves all the awards.
> 
> It was a complete sensory experience. Nothing like I've seen before. Loved every minute.





> : I have to tell you watching the new Hobbit was amazing ! You have to see this movie I was in total awesome, don't miss it . Goodnight from LA.




I am dying to watch the Smaug part already  They say its 30 min. long


----------



## martryn (Dec 3, 2013)

Holy fuck!  Now I'm even more excited.  I'm finishing like my 6th read thru of the book.  I'm actually looking forward more to the last movie, as I'm curious how they're going to handle the last part of the book.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 3, 2013)

I had no interest in The Hobbit but it turned out to be one of my favorite movies last year so I will likely go see this in theatres.


----------



## Khyle (Dec 3, 2013)

Can't wait


----------



## Jαmes (Dec 3, 2013)

i hear it tops return of the king.


----------



## The Weeknd (Dec 3, 2013)

Disliked the first one, interested in this one.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 4, 2013)

Jαmes said:


> i hear it tops return of the king.




To be honest, in technical and story telling aspects it may top RotK, but I'd be surprised if a middle part of a "lesser adventure" could have the emotional impact the grande finale of LotR had. TABA might have chances at it.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 4, 2013)

First one was a disappointment, hopefully this one is better.



Jαmes said:


> i hear it tops return of the king.


It can have even more endings


----------



## gershwin (Dec 4, 2013)

Personaly to me every movie of franchise is better than RotK


----------



## Amanda (Dec 4, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Personaly to me every movie of franchise is better than RotK




FotR > TTT > RotK > AUJ for me. I hope DOS changes this pattern.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 4, 2013)

Best of the LOTR series? Somehow I highly doubt that. I believe it when it has better scores than any LOTR-movie in Rotten Tomatoes.

Smaug reminds me little of Alduin or Paarthurnax actually.


----------



## Khyle (Dec 4, 2013)

RotK is my favorite, it's just so epic.

I love The Fellowship of the Ring too though; in fact I've watched it many more times than RoTK. But some parts are a bit boring, especially Lothl?rien. It's the one that has the biggest "Tolkien feeling", so to speak, though.

RoTK > FotR >>>> TTT (Ents... so slow...)>>>>>>>> AUJ

I'll be content as long as it's better than AUJ, which I liked a lot but it's nowhere near The Lord of the Rings trilogy.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 4, 2013)

Amanda said:


> FotR > TTT > RotK > AUJ for me. I hope DOS changes this pattern.



For me it would be:

AUJ >>>>> TTT > FotR.

I haven't seen RotK but you should keep in mind when seeing my opinion that I hate the LotR books so the story is already a bit doomed from my standpoint even in movie form. 

Never read The Hobbit so I am not sure if it is a better book or I simply didn't go in already having an idea that I wouldn't like it when I watched the movie.


----------



## TylerDurden (Dec 4, 2013)

I am not trusting those reviews.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 4, 2013)

In Benedict Cumberbatch I trust it seems.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 6, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> For me it would be:
> 
> AUJ >>>>> TTT > FotR.
> 
> ...





How can you hate the books bruh? And you're slipping on not watching ROTK.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 6, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> How can you hate the books bruh? And you're slipping on not watching ROTK.



I just think there is nothing interesting about them to be honest with you. Don't get me wrong, I respect the guy for his achievements and the inspiration he had on many others but I found no enjoyment in his books. 

I plan on watching it at some point. It is just that the other 2 didn't inspire me enough to do it immediately.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 6, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> I just think there is nothing interesting about them to be honest with you. Don't get me wrong, I respect the guy for his achievements and the inspiration he had on many others but I found no enjoyment in his books.
> 
> I plan on watching it at some point. It is just that the other 2 didn't inspire me enough to do it immediately.



When did you read them? I read the trilogy when I was younger and I didn't like it. But I loved Fellowship of the ring so I re-read the trilogy and found it to be amazing. ROTK was my favorite and I think you might enjoy it more than the other two, give it a try. But yeah, I know some other people that didn't enjoy the books either. Hopefully you will like the Hobbit if you ever come around to reading it.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 6, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> When did you read them? I read the trilogy when I was younger and I didn't like it. But I loved Fellowship of the ring so I re-read the trilogy and found it to be amazing. ROTK was my favorite and I think you might enjoy it more than the other two, give it a try. But yeah, I know some other people that didn't enjoy the books either. Hopefully you will like the Hobbit if you ever come around to reading it.



I read it maybe?1 or 2 years ago. I am 28 so?.Still old enough to know my tastes. 

I do plan on watching the movie and reading The hobbit at some point.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 6, 2013)

If you haven`t read Hobbit in childhood - you probably won`t enjoy it now, imo. At least I concidered it great when i was 12 or so, but rereading it, esp. after the movie was my big mistake  Still nice story for kids though.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 7, 2013)

gershwin said:


> If you haven`t read Hobbit in childhood - you probably won`t enjoy it now, imo. At least I concidered it great when i was 12 or so, but rereading it, esp. after the movie was my big mistake  Still nice story for kids though.



I didn't read the Hobbit when I was a kid, and I read it for the first time just few months after the movie came out and I liked it.


----------



## martryn (Dec 7, 2013)

I recently re-read the Hobbit for like the fifth or sixth time.  The book is still fantastic.  The older I get, the more I realize it's a children's story, and I can't wait until my son is old enough so I can read it to him.  It's very whimsical, much more so than I remembered the last time I read it.  It deserves to be considered a classic, that's for sure.

The Lord of the Rings, though, is just... epic.  There are fantasy authors I like more than Tolkien, and series I enjoyed more, but the Lord of the Rings deserves it's high place in the genre, and it certainly is the most important work of fantasy since Homer.  I've heard people mention that they didn't like the pacing of the series, and a lot of the book seemed to be describing vistas and shit, but I loved the attention to detail and the world-building.  Tolkien certainly set the scene.

Regardless, I knew there was a reason that Cyphon was on my Ignore list.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 7, 2013)

martryn said:


> Regardless, I knew there was a reason that Cyphon was on my Ignore list.



For not liking 1 set of books? 

Weakest shit I think I have ever heard on this forum 

Tell me, when your son is old enough are you gonna get mad if he doesn't let you play with his toys?

What if he thinks The Hobbit sucks? You going to ground him?


----------



## Amanda (Dec 7, 2013)

For those who want to have _everything_ spoiled for them, . Yes, I'm putting it here so that you can burn in the fires of temptation. 

EDIT: .


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 7, 2013)

So far actual reviews from actual critics aren't looking too good. Can't say I'm surprised.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 7, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> So far actual reviews from actual critics aren't looking too good. Can't say I'm surprised.




Care to post some links?


----------



## dream (Dec 7, 2013)

You can check some of the reviews here:


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 7, 2013)

RT, imdb, metacritic etc


----------



## Amanda (Dec 7, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> RT, imdb, metacritic etc




By links I meant something like  or  or . I thought you had some specific negative review in mind.




Dream said:


> You can check some of the reviews here:




Cheers! I had seen many of those before, but the bigger picture is rather clear this way.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 7, 2013)

all of them have links to individual reviews, like you posted


----------



## Amanda (Dec 7, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> all of them have links to individual reviews, like you posted




Yeah, but I also said I thought you had some specific negative reviews in mind. 

Because as far as I can see, the majority of the reviews are positive. So when you say "actual reviews from actual critics", I take it you mean the positive reviews are somehow inferior to the negative ones, which are from the "actual critics"?


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 7, 2013)

There can't be a specific review. You have to read the available ones and see for yourself which ones sound reasonable. So far, as per usual, the positive reviews are excessively positive and look mostly obviously bought or just not giving any damn about the movie beyond special effects.

It all comes down to you seeing the movie for yourself in the end though


----------



## Amanda (Dec 7, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> There can't be a specific review. You have to read the available ones and see for yourself which ones sound reasonable. So far, as per usual, the positive reviews are excessively positive and look mostly obviously bought or just not giving any damn about the movie beyond special effects.
> 
> It all comes down to you seeing the movie for yourself in the end though




I try to form a composite image of sort by combining the various reviews. The critics have such different approaches to the movie, and while one critic can only include so and so much information in his article, together they can pass on more.

Anyway, I agree that ultimately you need to see the movie yourself. Not much left now!


----------



## gershwin (Dec 7, 2013)

Dream said:


> You can check some of the reviews here:



Fandom is already raging about RT XD They actualy put every negative one, but completely ignored + 8 positive reviews. For now its 16 positive and 4 negative. 

I sweared not to read any spoilers, but in the end couldn`t resist  Now im even more hyped. Especialy for 
*Spoiler*: __ 



love triangle .


----------



## Amanda (Dec 8, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Especialy for
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...




Is that sarcasm?  If not, then that makes two of us. But it sounds like as if it might be fun to watch, as sounds


*Spoiler*: __ 





the Dwarves vs Smaug inside Erebor sequence. People might not like a change so big, but to me it makes sense enough to let Thorin have a face off with the dragon of whose demise he has been speaking and dreaming off. If Thorin had _killed_ the dragon, then it would have been bad - it's not his place to be the hero shining bright, but the hero who falls and causes lot of trouble to others with his greed and pride.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 8, 2013)

Amanda said:


> For those who want to have _everything_ spoiled for them, . Yes, I'm putting it here so that you can burn in the fires of temptation.
> 
> EDIT: .



I couldn't help myself and read all the Necromancer stuff. I don't know what to think about it, have to see the movie myself.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 8, 2013)

So, there are already reviews of the second film? Was it released in another country before being released in the Untied States?


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 8, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> There can't be a specific review. You have to read the available ones and see for yourself which ones sound reasonable. So far, as per usual, the positive reviews are excessively positive and *look mostly obviously bought* or just not giving any damn about the movie beyond special effects.
> 
> It all comes down to you seeing the movie for yourself in the end though





Do you have any evidence for this? I bet you are one of those douchebags that think every sport is fixed.

Looks like you haven't even read the positive reviews considering most of them are not only raving about the "special effects".


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 9, 2013)

Reviews look amazing guys. 81 percent on RT so far and most reviews saying that this movie is Lord of the Rings level good.



			
				Demondragonj said:
			
		

> So, there are already reviews of the second film? Was it released in another country before being released in the Untied States?



I don't think so bro. I'm pretty sure they are all from pre-screening events.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Reviews look amazing guys. 81 percent on RT so far and most reviews saying that this movie is Lord of the Rings level good.



Bad news for me lol. I want it to be Hobbit 1 level good?..Or better of course.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 9, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> Bad news for me lol. I want it to be Hobbit 1 level good…..Or better of course.




While some compare it to LotR, most compare it to AUJ and pretty much everybody says it's an improvement on all fronts. Especially in pacing and engaging the audience. When compared to LotR they say it's fundamentally different because of the simple fact that it's about lesser issues than LotR, which was characterized by doom, and the despair or heroism before it.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 9, 2013)

Amanda said:


> While some compare it to LotR, most compare it to AUJ and pretty much everybody says it's an improvement on all fronts. Especially in pacing and engaging the audience. When compared to LotR they say it's fundamentally different because of the simple fact that it's about lesser issues than LotR, which was characterized by doom, and the despair or heroism before it.



Should be awesome than. It isn't likely I thought the LotR movies were bad, I just didn't enjoy them that much. I really liked Hobbit though. More entertaining overall.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 9, 2013)

^ me too. 
LoTR movies are great, but not enough for me to fangirl over them as i do for Hobbit 



Amanda said:


> Is that sarcasm?  If not, then that makes two of us.




Berlin premiere right now


----------



## Amanda (Dec 9, 2013)

Cyphon said:


> It isn't likely I thought the LotR movies were bad, I just didn't enjoy them that much.




That's how fiction works. It's a success or a failure on the basis of whether it fulfills the goal the author himself set for it. The rest is personal tastes and opinions of the readers. Some stories we like, some we don't, and that's fine. I'm sure there's plenty of terrific, masterfully written and oh so intelligent books out there - of which I wouldn't care less about if I ever read them. 



gershwin said:


> Berlin premiere right now




How nice to meet someone whose reaction isn't 

1) BUT IT'S NOT IN THE BOOOOOOK!!!!!! 

2) This interferes with my ships!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 9, 2013)

Have some clips & TV Spots before the movie comes out this Friday in the states. I'll have to wait till next week so that it arrives to my country:



[YOUTUBE]YreJ0SamM0I[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]ZkVnOXfJlJk[/YOUTUBE]





Also a 

And pictures:


----------



## Fay (Dec 11, 2013)

I just saw the hobbit, IMO the best movie I saw this year . My only points of critique were: 
*Spoiler*: __ 



- Sometimes you saw they used a fake decor
- the acting wasn't always top notch
- Legolas journey goal wasn't completely clear to me



If not for that then this would have been a 10/10 easily (and I very rarely give a movie this), but now I'll give it a 8.5/10 .


----------



## gershwin (Dec 11, 2013)

Fay said:


> I just saw the hobbit, IMO the best movie I saw this year . My only points of critique were:
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



OMG YOU ARE LUCKY
And I need to wait for a whole week 
May i ask

*Spoiler*: __ 



- did you like Tau/Kili romance?


----------



## Fay (Dec 11, 2013)

gershwin said:


> OMG YOU ARE LUCKY
> And I need to wait for a whole week
> May i ask
> 
> ...



*Spoiler*: __ 



Yes I did , lol my sister turned into a rabid Tau/Kili shipper after this movie


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 11, 2013)

And what you thought about Tauriel as a character? Even though she wasn't in the book did she work in the movie?


----------



## Fay (Dec 11, 2013)

Sauron said:


> And what you thought about Tauriel as a character? Even though she wasn't in the book did she work in the movie?



I haven't read the book, so I can't truthfully compare the movie to it. I have to say though, I thought she fit in very well and as someone who hasn't read the book I wouldn't have guessed she was non-existent in the book if others hadn't told me.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 11, 2013)

Fay said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I did , lol my sister turned into a rabid Tau/Kili shipper after this movie





Fay said:


> I haven't read the book, so I can't truthfully compare the movie to it. I have to say though, I thought she fit in very well and as someone who hasn't read the book I wouldn't have guessed she was non-existent in the book if others hadn't told me.




Good to hear on both accounts! I'm a passionate Tolkienist, but the additions and changes PJ has made sound good on the basis of what I've heard of them. Many other fans rage because _changes are bad because changes simply are bad, the end_. 

I don't share the same mindset. The greatest priority is the cinematic quality of the movie trilogy itself. It must have a life of its own apart from the books, it must be entertaining and enjoyable on its own right. If this can be done while staying pious to the source material, then great. Such movies exist too. But if the movie is great fun while deviating from the book, then it's more questionable to cry for loyalty. We don't know how the movie would have worked for non-book readers without Tauriel's input to the feud between the Dwarves and the Elves. We don't know how the general audience would have felt about


*Spoiler*: __ 



Thorin never having a confrontation with Smaug, and Smaug randomly getting killed by some guy we barely even know.




I also don't think it's insulting to suggest the original author, in this case Tolkien, might have done something insufficiently, or that there's something missing in his book. Everything should be discussionable, even Tolkien's holy canon. The Tolkien fans are really rapid, and often rise him on the pedestal of perfection, above all criticism. That's both wrong, and unfair to him too. 

A better question might be, how much the film maker should love the original book for what it is, before he takes the challenge of adapting it. I've seen the results when the film crew don't appreciate the source book or believe in its charm, and try to mangle it into something entirely different for it to more to their liking, to their understanding of what is good fiction. Those movies should be left unmade, or to be made by someone else.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 11, 2013)

Well said Amanda.


----------



## Nimander (Dec 11, 2013)

Have to wait until the 21st at the earliest before I can watch this. Am not pleased. Not pleased at all.


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 12, 2013)

Was really mediocre and lifeless. Way to go to miss the entire charm of the book.

The obviousness of them trying to do betterer, bigerer and cgierer than original trilogy completely ruins the entire experience and the point of the Hobbit.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 12, 2013)

Joakim Mogren said:


> Was really mediocre and lifeless. Way to go to miss the entire charm of the book.
> 
> The obviousness of them trying to do betterer, bigerer and cgierer than original trilogy completely ruins the entire experience and the point of the Hobbit.



LOL. Like anyone is going to take your review seriously.



> . So far, as per usual, the positive reviews are excessively positive and *look mostly obviously bought *


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 12, 2013)

Smaug is watching you stealing the dwarves's his gold:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 12, 2013)

The fan fiction by peter jackson Part II!

A LOTR PREQUEL where a pussyboot hobbit just happens to be there. AND OLD CHARACTERS COMING BACK YEAH!!! With MORE EPICNESS! AND EPICNESS AND SPECIAL FX!!!

I understand it doesnt have to be a carbon copy of the book, but at least make a decent adaptation that stays true to its spirit no??

I think it is a fine movie this part two, its fun but not the over wanking shit.

Went to an advanced screening, you will definitely like it. Also IMO I still like this Smaug more:

*Spoiler*: __ 







UUUUuuuu Spoilers!!!


----------



## Gabe (Dec 12, 2013)

Seeing it tomorrow should be good


----------



## kluang (Dec 13, 2013)

Just saw it

Perfection

Lotr level. I say better then Ttt.

the pacing, the action and the comedy is even better. 

But Cumberbatch just Cumberbitch everyone with his Smaug. Best movie dragon. Period

9/10


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> I understand it doesnt have to be a carbon copy of the book, but at least make a decent adaptation that stays true to its spirit no??
> 
> I think it is a fine movie this part two, its fun but not the over wanking shit.




I've decided to go in with the attitude "let's not let the book ruin the movie." 

But glad to hear you found it "fine", knowing how you felt about AUJ.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 13, 2013)

Fun as a movie, if you could forget it was The Hobbit. Some of the stuff in it was just random as all hell and really trying too hard to be an epic.

My only serious complaint with it was Tauriel.


*Spoiler*: __ 



As a disclaimer, I am a fan of the books and the moment I heard of this character, I was very annoyed that she was being added because I could see where it was going. Yet IIRC, Jackson said that she wasn't there for romance purposes...? Maybe I just convinced myself that he said that because I didn't want it to be true.

Regardless, I decided to go into the movie very open-minded in regards to her. I _wanted_ to like her. But she's in it for all of thirty seconds before she's the middle of a love triangle, and it ends up carrying on through the rest of the movie. She really didn't strike me as a Tolkien-esque character, either, and stuck out badly (as did Legolas in this).




Otherwise, it was enjoyable. Smaug was fantastic, even with those moving dragon lips, but I admit I had no clue what was going on most of the time everyone was down there.  He more or less made up for the movie's deficiencies otherwise. The Necromancer sidestory proved to be pretty good. The silly Pale Orc stuff, while still there, didn't take up too much of the movie. 

It wasn't LotR-level good, but it was much better than the first movie.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 13, 2013)

I see a lot of complaints about how its too rushed and leaves no room for character development (bar Tauriel). Is it realy so?


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 13, 2013)

Absolutely loved the film. I really appreciate the high fantasy epic. Love all the dialogue. The fights are the best I've ever seen. Love the characters. Tauriel had a lot of screentime, but she was great. I was really saying no over again as it was ending, I didn't want it to end. Gandalf and all of the magic stuff was highly appreciated. Not enough magic previously for me. Always great to see the elves in action. The Dragon was perfect. Will maybe try to write something a bit more comprehensive later. Please do try to goto a true IMAX cinema. Not just a regular cinema that claims it is IMAX.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 13, 2013)

gershwin said:


> I see a lot of complaints about how its too rushed and leaves no room for character development (bar Tauriel). Is it realy so?



It was kind of rushed (Bilbo was a side character in many parts) but to be honest, the actual book doesn't do much to develop the dwarves to begin with and half of the other characters in the movie weren't in the book anyway, so Jackson really had nothing to go on. 

Bard got more attention than I expected (props to whoever decided to have his kid dressed like the hero in How to Train Your Dragon") and Thranduil was done pretty well, though I did feel Beorn kind of got the shaft. Then again, I wouldn't say he had development in the book. Just more time. I spent half the Beorn scene staring at that one yak who had a total "wtf is this" expression on his face because there just wasn't a whole lot else to focus on. 

Though I will say that Jackson is really good at making you just want to smack Thorin full in the face. He's even more unlikeable in this than he is in the first.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 13, 2013)

Glad for Bard`s screentime then. He seems like a promising character from spoilers.


PikaCheeka said:


> Though I will say that Jackson is really good at making you just want to smack Thorin full in the face. He's even more unlikeable in this than he is in the first.


Thorin was unlikeable in first movie? blasphemy

And i incredibly envious of those who are able to see Smaug with his original voice and not a fucking dub.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 13, 2013)

Going to stalk thread a bit more because I don't know anyone else who has seen it yet and want to talk about it.



gershwin said:


> Glad for Bard`s screentime then. He seems like a promising character from spoilers.
> 
> Thorin was unlikeable in first movie? blasphemy



My only problem with Bard is that the actor looks a lot like Orlando Bloom from the Pirates movies so I kept thinking Legolas was an imposter. Dunno who he was but damn, it was a little weird.

*Spoiler*: __ 




As for Thorin...let's just say his big "I AM GOING TO BE A DICK FOR NO REASON" moments didn't have "Hmph here have a hug" moments after them, anymore.






> And i incredibly envious of those who are able to see Smaug with his original voice and not a fucking dub.



 What language? I'm just picturing him talking in French and laughing really hard now.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 13, 2013)

I start to feel as if Ihave  already watched the movie - spoiled pretty much everything. Time to leave for a week  cause its not good 


PikaCheeka said:


> What language? I'm just picturing him talking in French and laughing really hard now.


Well i can judge only by trailers for now. French seems kinda good, idk. Thanks god I could chose between russian and ukrainian - russian is aweful. Worst of all. He sounds as human (Holmes actualy because the actor dubbed Sherlock as well  at least they added ton of filters on Benedict`s voice) and certainly not a dragon


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> Yet IIRC, Jackson said that she wasn't there for romance purposes...? Maybe I just convinced myself that he said that because I didn't want it to be true.





*Spoiler*: __ 





As far as I know he didn't say there will be no _romance_... he said there will be no romance _with Legolas_ - which I always took as "yup, there'll be romance". 

And then of course Legolas became part of the romance aswell. Boyens claims it wasn't intentional, but apparently Orlando Bloom gave these jealous looks as part of his acting choices and they decided to run with it. Yeah.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 13, 2013)

I can't wait for Redlettermedia to review this movie in their half in the bag-episode. I think they have pretty fair and accurate view on most of the movies and how they actually are.

I myself haven't seen the movie and I'm kinda annoyed that it's only shown in 3D here where I live. I hate to wear those damn glasses.

Ps. Cumberbatch is also credited for voicing Necromancer. Did he (Necromancer) actually speak in the movie or was it just that black speech 'whispering' again we heard in previous one?


----------



## Rawri (Dec 13, 2013)

Went to see Desolation of the Smaug yesterday on an Imax theatre (second time ever I've watched 3D). It was surprisingly good. I really enjoyed the movie. More so than the first one at least.

*The good: *

- Smaug. The dragon scenes were glorious.

- Fighting scenes. I loved them. Especially the barrels one.

- Greatly enjoyed Thranduil, Bilbo and Gandalf.

*The bad:*

- The love triangle between Tauriel, Kili and Legolas. I didn't enjoy it. At all. I did enjoy Tauriel, but not the romance.


The movie doesn't really follow the book, but I'm fine with that. I'd give this movie a 8.5/10. It was extremely entertaining.

Can't wait for the third movie.

*Spoiler*: __ 



The Battle of the Five Armies


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> Fun as a movie, if you could forget it was The Hobbit. Some of the stuff in it was just random as all hell and really trying too hard to be an epic.
> 
> My only serious complaint with it was Tauriel.
> 
> ...


I rolled my eyes during those parts and pretend I was watching a movie "BASED" on the Hobbit and not the hobbit. Otherwise I would had been very upset for the rest of the movie, well yeah Who am I kiddin...

Bilbo has always been a side character in these Jackson Movies, a spineless wussy side character.
The Bilbo from the book was extremely polite, didn't bitch like this one and had a sense of pride.
One of the things that I will always remember is when Bilbo was tricked into joining the Dwarf party by his own sense of pride.

*Spoiler*: __ 




Also when the Elves got drunk in the book, one of my favorite parts.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 13, 2013)

I'm not sure if this is an official poster:





PikaCheeka said:


> My only problem with Bard is that the actor looks a lot like Orlando Bloom from the Pirates movies so I kept thinking Legolas was an imposter. Dunno who he was but damn, it was a little weird.



Glad to know I'm not the only one that thinks this. Even thought that Orlando Bloom was doing both the parts of Legolas & Bard everytime I saw posters featuring the latter.

Barn is played by Luke Evans though.


----------



## eHav (Dec 13, 2013)

gonna watch it tomorow on imax 3d hfr. so far everyone seems to be positive about it, looking forward to it


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 13, 2013)

Amanda said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



 I don't buy that for one second. It seemed pretty obvious that it was intended as a love triangle from the very beginning. If it wasn't intended, then he would have had to have gone after her out of 1) duty (obviously wouldn't have happened unless they changed his father's character drastically) or 2) friendship or kinship. Legolas didn't show any friendly concern for her well-being whatsoever, just annoyance and jealousy. So unless they were originally buddies and decided to swap it to angsty love affairs just because Bloom made a lot of "jealous looks"....yea it was planned.






Sauron said:


> ... I'm kinda annoyed that *it's only shown in 3D here where I live*



That's cause you live in Mordor and everything is shit there.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 13, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> I'm not sure if this is an official poster:
> 
> *Spoiler*: __


She isn`t in the movie  so ofc. its fake, I also saw the same with White Council 


Evangeline Lilly about love triangle:

*Spoiler*: __ 



?For the record, when I took this job, in 2011, I made one stipulation. That?s it. I just said? I swear to God, I said, ?I will not do this film if you will not guarantee me one thing. You have to guarantee me there will be no love triangle.? And there wasn?t. For the whole time I shot. For a year of shooting there was no love triangle,? Evangeline told Access Hollywood when we asked her at the film?s recent Los Angeles junket about how in ?The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug? she has a blond and a brunette to choose from, just like Kate did on ?Lost.?

?And then, I came back for reshoots in 2012 and they were like, ?Well, we made a couple of alterations to some scenes and we added a couple more scenes,?? the actress continued. ?And all of a sudden manifested a love triangle before my very eyes and the film was shot and I?m in and there?s no getting out and there was no escaping it.?


----------



## Swarmy (Dec 13, 2013)

The spiders were hilarious when they talked


----------



## Fay (Dec 13, 2013)

gershwin said:


> She isn`t in the movie  so ofc. its fake, I also saw the same with White Council
> 
> 
> Evangeline Lilly about love triangle:
> ...



Well personally I liked it . Ah well, everyone sees things differently I suppose . I'm glad I didn't read the book, I will read it after I see the last movie


----------



## Jesus (Dec 13, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> What language? I'm just picturing him talking in French and laughing really hard now.



The French dub of Smaug is actually pretty good, though I haven't heard the original to compare.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 13, 2013)

Saw the movie today I absolutely loved it. 
It was definitely better than the 1st one and this felt more like "hobbit."

There were some unnecessary extensions though. Like forced dwarf / elf romance and stuff.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 13, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> Bilbo has always been a side character in these Jackson Movies, a spineless wussy side character.
> The Bilbo from the book was extremely polite, didn't bitch like this one and had a sense of pride.



I don't know why people keep saying this. When did you read the book? I read it pretty recently (about a year ago) and his portrayal in the movie matches the book. He actually bitches MORE in the book than in the movie. Every 10th page is him going "and again i remembered my cozy hobbithole" "if only I was back in the shire" etc. 

From reading the book, I didn't get the sense that he was prideful until the very end.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 13, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I don't know why people keep saying this. When did you read the book? I read it pretty recently (about a year ago) and his portrayal in the movie matches the book. He actually bitches MORE in the book than in the movie. Every 10th page is him going "and again i remembered my cozy hobbithole" "if only I was back in the shire" etc.
> 
> From reading the book, I didn't get the sense that he was prideful until the very end.



What language did you read it? He did bitch but his character was different, he was modest and had pride. He did bitch but he didnt express it to everyone else nor did he attempted to run away like a little beyatch.

I honestly dont know who is Peter Jackson trying to fool, himself most likely. This movie was very different from the book that I read, a total cash grab.
Still dont let it ruin the fun, go ahead and enjoy it if you can.


----------



## Megaharrison (Dec 13, 2013)

Whole movie I was basically yelling BRING OUT THE FUCKING DRAGON ALREADY, then they go and drag out the damn dragon by having him in two movies. Goddamnit Jackson. It's a 300 page book


----------



## dream (Dec 13, 2013)

That fucking love plot.  What the fuck was Jackson thinking?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 13, 2013)

Megaharrison said:


> Whole movie I was basically yelling BRING OUT THE FUCKING DRAGON ALREADY, then they go and drag out the damn dragon by having him in two movies. Goddamnit Jackson. It's a 300 page book



Thats hobbit's downfall imo.

The movie is trying to be much more than the book actually is.

The book is nothing like LOTR, yet Jackson thinks it can be.


----------



## dream (Dec 13, 2013)

Jackson should just go ahead and adapt The Silmarillion.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 13, 2013)

Dream said:


> Jackson should just go ahead and adapt The Silmarillion.



IMHO Silmarillion would be much better off as a TV series.
Though it would be an expensive one.


----------



## dream (Dec 13, 2013)

I wouldn't mind a TV series as long as I could see Fingolfin vs Morgoth.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2013)

You know, I (mostly) had fun watching this, but there was _so much filler._


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Evangeline Lilly about love triangle:
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> ...




You know, whatever PJ has been up to I'd really wish for his own sake that those decisions were made from the get-go. I mean, he had a story structured to be told in two parts, and had it mostly filmed too. Then out of the blue he decided to expand it into a trilogy instead. And now this story about deciding to entirely change the relationship between three fairly prominent characters in the post-production? Oh PJ, PJ, PJ... 

But then again, if he did make those decisions from the start, then he has been lying to us and Lilly. Or Lilly is lying to us too. Oh dear. These are not the questions I'd want to be asking as a fan.



Dream said:


> Jackson should just go ahead and adapt The Silmarillion.




A Silmarillion TV series would be great, but not by Jackson. He's better off filming something more to his style. Hand this baby over to BBC or HBO. (In the Alternative Universe where Christopher Tolkien would ever sell the rights.)



Dream said:


> I wouldn't mind a TV series as long as I could see Fingolfin vs Morgoth.




I'd like to see L?thien dancing Morgoth and his court to sleep... Though I can already envision the scene PJ'd into a massive action scene where she knocks them all out by shooting magic laser beams out of her eyes.

Fall of Gondolin would be neat, too. The bad guys get to actually conquer and destroy the city. Wait, that happens a lot in the Silm... Yep, I want to see it all. Let Nargothrond burn too!


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2013)

The action got pretty silly in this movie too.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2013)

I mean, when it was grounded it was cool.

But Legolas jumping on the dwarves' heads, Bombur with the barrel armor...


----------



## martryn (Dec 14, 2013)

If your favorite part of the Lord of the Rings trilogy was Legolas doing over-the-top action scenes, this is your movie.

I did enjoy it a lot.  To break down my pros and cons, in as spoiler free as possible:
Pros: 
*The characterization of the dwarfs was nice.  I like that Jackson is trying to make each dwarf feel more unique, as in the book, there really isn't much of a difference between Bifor, Bofur, Oin, Gloin, Ori, Nori, etc.  In fact, the book really only talks about Thorin (the leader), Balin (the lookout and 2nd in command), Bofur (the fat one), Dori (the strongest), and Fili/Kili (the young ones who are indistinguishable from themselves).
*The sets were fantastic.  I loved seeing Dol Guldur fleshed out.  I loved how Lake Town appeared.  And seeing the inside of Erebor.  With that, the costumes were great. 
*If viewed from an action movie perspective, the action scenes were highly enjoyable, if they weren't very serious.
*Smaug.  Holy fuck.

Cons: 
*Silly love triangle that doesn't fucking make sense, and was so incredibly bad.
*Beorn barely appeared in the movie, and I thought he looked a bit on the thin side.  I was thinking he'd look like an athletic version of Hagrid, but he didn't appear human, despite being a man.
*The trip through Mirkwood seemed to have taken less than a day, instead of the weeks in the book.  That part of the movie sped past to the point of non-consequence.  With all the random traveling shots from the first film, why not at least some indication that the dwarves were there for days, like some quick scenes of them around a campfire or traveling through different weather conditions?  This problem with timing comes up multiple times in the movie, where the timeline of the film is vastly accelerated compared to those actions in the movie.  They walked from Lake Town to the gate by sunset?  That shit took them days in the book.  And they were on the mountain for a long time before they found the door.
*Legolas.  While it was neat and appropriate to include him in the film, I'm not entirely sure why his role was expanded to become so large.  I have some fears that he'll have a larger role to play, again, in the third movie.
*Bilbo's continuance stupidity.  He has a magic ring that makes him invisible, but his encounter with Smaug, and with the elves, he never wants to put it on.  The movie was long enough, so why not just a short scene where he goes to put it on, hears the whispers or something, and puts the ring away.  Then we'd get the idea that Bilbo is starting to become afraid of using the ring.
*Thorin's character.  For most of the movie he's just a dick.  A big sack of dicks.  And also ready and willing to give up his quest (that bit on the doorstep where they all just shrugged their shoulders and seemed to say, "Fuck it, we tried.")  And while he does some dickish things in the book, he almost seems evil in the movie, at least at times.

My biggest complaint wasn't the stuff they put into the film, though, but the bits they took out to make room for this stuff that wasn't in the book.  If you're going to give us three movies for a book only 300 pages long, why leave anything out?  I would have liked a scene of Bombur falling into a stream in Mirkwood and falling asleep for days, or any of the other little scenes in that took place in Mirkwood.  I would have liked to see more characterization of Beorn, and some extended scenes of the dwarfs at his house.  I wish Bilbo's encounters with Smaug would have followed the book more closely, as he makes more than one trip in there to visit Smaug.  Instead we get elf on dwarf love.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2013)

martryn said:


> My biggest complaint wasn't the stuff they put into the film, though, but the bits they took out to make room for this stuff that wasn't in the book.  If you're going to give us three movies for a book only 300 pages long, why leave anything out?  I would have liked a scene of Bombur falling into a stream in Mirkwood and falling asleep for days, or any of the other little scenes in that took place in Mirkwood.  I would have liked to see more characterization of Beorn, and some extended scenes of the dwarfs at his house.  I wish Bilbo's encounters with Smaug would have followed the book more closely, as he makes more than one trip in there to visit Smaug.  Instead we get elf on dwarf love.




Bombur falling into the stream was filmed, I believe, but ended up axed. Perhaps we'll see it in the Extended Edition.

However, Boyens said the scene where the Dwarves stumble upon the partying Elves was immediately decided to be left out. Her reasoning: "it's too Midsummer night's dream". And that's exactly what I have against Boyens, the self-proclaimed "biggest Tolkien fan". And the whole approach team PJ has to these films. They've entirely re-calibrated what these movies should be about. The greatest factor is the atmosphere and the tone of the film. Apparently Tolkien got his own book's soul wrong, and needs to be corrected. But the thing is, I really liked the fairy tale quality of the book. 

The Mirkwood sequence with the sounds echoing far from the woods, the crossing of the river, the white stag... all of that was great. It was based on knowledge going back centuries and milleniums, which we sort of recognize but can't quite place because it has been lost from our conscious minds: white animals are a sign, running water has spiritual significance, crossing the water means passing into the Faerie, in the Faerie you mustn't stray from the path... in the Faerie there is beauty that comes with peril, and above all else, in the Faerie you're a stranger that doesn't belong there, that is not wanted there, even if you feel it calling you. It was subtle and beautiful, straight out of the mists of Germanic poetry.

To replace this with fun and energetic action scenes... it's not necessarily bad, but it's different. Something is lost and replaced. And in all of PJ's Middle-Earth, I feel mysticism is replaced with ultimately pretty superficial action. PJ takes the factual happenings, uses them as a frame, and gives them another filling.

Ok, I've defended the changes here a lot. By it I've meant the movie can still be a good movie even if it's not a good adaptation. It can be enjoyed on its own right. And at the end of the day, being a good movie is more important than being a good adaptation. If you can't have both, then just have a good movie.

However, when adaptations are discussed, it seems to me that PJ isn't really that good director for adapting Tolkien. Even more so, it seems PJ doesn't get Tolkien - sometimes I wonder if he really even likes Tolkien that much. And if we'd want to have a Tolkien adaptation that would be both a good movie and a good adaptation... we'd need another director.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 14, 2013)

Dream said:


> I wouldn't mind a TV series as long as I could see Fingolfin vs Morgoth.




I think that encounter is one of the best confrontations in the realm of fiction.  If done with great justice, can become phenomenal.
The thing is, silmariallion is full of stuff like that. 

I'd also love to see Hurin vs 70 troll guards and Ecthelion vs Gothmog(which was offpaneled in the books).

I am not sure if Jackson would be the best one to do those sequences though. I like Jackson's vision but his action scenes could a bit more serious. They are a bit overly action packed with comic relief here and there.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 14, 2013)

Dream said:


> Jackson should just go ahead and adapt The Silmarillion.



Thank GOD no one has the license to make it into a movie! And if you have read what Christopher Tolkien thinks about Lord of the Rings and previous Hobbit, no one's gonna get that license anyway.

Personally I also think it's probably for the best. Does every fucking book need to be made a movie these days? I hope hollywood will leave Tolkien's work in peace after these Hobbits are finished in my opinion. They aren't even right adaptions for the books in a way, they have un-necessary romance, added stuff that actually contradicts Tolkien's own work and so on. Not saying the movies aren't good though, but what's the point of making a movie out of Silmarillion when they haven't even done Hobbit justice properly.

PJ should probably have just kept the Hobbit in two parts.


----------



## PikaCheeka (Dec 14, 2013)

If Silmarillion was made by Jackson, I can think of 50 ways he could butcher my namesake character and make me embarrassed to watch it. 

@ Martry, Amanda - The Hobbit movies have no sense of *wonder* like the book does. The attempt to make it into an epic took all of that away, which really is a great loss


----------



## Bruce Wayne (Dec 14, 2013)

Dream said:


> Jackson should just go ahead and adapt The Silmarillion.



Good luck getting Christopher Tolkien to sell the rights.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2013)

PikaCheeka said:


> If Silmarillion was made by Jackson, I can think of 50 ways he could butcher my namesake character and make me embarrassed to watch it.




Wait, what? PikaCheeka comes from the Silmarillion?  Trying to riddle this will take me to my grave.



PikaCheeka said:


> The Hobbit movies have no sense of *wonder* like the book does. The attempt to make it into an epic took all of that away, which really is a great loss




Yeah. Leaving the theater, while I felt entertained and kept thinking of some of the scenes and lines, I still also couldn't help but to ask "did this story need to be told?". And the answer was no. In a few years time, I won't remember any of this. It doesn't have that deep impact LotR had on the teenage me, or the impact Tolkien keeps having on me to this day. 

This isn't to say that the story of the Hobbit couldn't have been very memorable and meaningful. It just would have needed to be told in a different way; with an approach that plays into its natural strengths (wonder for one, as you mentioned). Then it could have blossomed. Now it's just trying to be something it's not, and that's why it's failing to be anything, really. Expect fun action movie among other fun action movies. But it lacks heart.

Though I immediately have to add: Even if the rest of the movie doesn't often feel like Tolkien, many of the characters do. The actors are easily the best thing here. Balin, Thorin, Bilbo. And Thranduil. I could have licked that man off the screen. He's my perfect 1st Age Elf lost in the grey 3rd Age. Frankly the movie should have been nothing but him sassing up that dress for three hours. Thank you, Lee Pace.


----------



## Swarmy (Dec 14, 2013)

Can someone explain to me why Thranduil's face started rotting when he came close to Thorin?


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 14, 2013)

Swarmy said:


> Can someone explain to me why Thranduil's face started rotting when he came close to Thorin?



Illusion perhaps. 

He either masks his rotten face with illusion or he turned his face into that to make a point( he was talking about dragon breath).

Don't remember that detail from the book. Its been like 15 years since I read it.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2013)

Apparently Evangeline Lilly (Tauriel) was promised when she signed on for the film that she wouldn't be forced into a love triangle.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 14, 2013)

Stunna said:


> Apparently Evangeline Lilly (Tauriel) was promised when she signed on for the film that she wouldn't be forced into a love triangle.



Its her curse. Where ever she goes, there is a love triangle.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2013)

Swarmy said:


> Can someone explain to me why Thranduil's face started rotting when he came close to Thorin?




It's PJ's invention, so we can only guess what he meant by it - Tolkien has no answers. 

But I assume the idea was Thranduil was wounded in some battle with the dragons of the north, and either showed a vision of what has happened to him (but now has healed), or momentarily removed a spell of concealment that hides his hideous scars. Both kinds of magic would be ok in terms of Tolkien, as Elves uses spells with similar idea in canon. However, I don't know how Thranduil could live with such terrible wound on his face, so I guess the wound has healed and he just showed off what he once looked like.



Grimmjowsensei said:


> Its her curse. Where ever she goes, there is a love triangle.




This one was far more toleratable than the abysmal Jack/Kate/Sawyer thing, though.


----------



## eHav (Dec 14, 2013)

watched it and it was great. not really fond of how they used Legolas and Tauriel, but Thranduil was great. Also liked Bard


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2013)

Ok,  of Thranduil's burned face. That can't be just concealed, it must be a vision of something that doesn't really exist (any more).


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 14, 2013)

Did Thranduil stole some cursed aztec (or dwarvish in this case) gold aswell...


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 14, 2013)

Watched the movie last night. I think it was great but I have the same concerns as most people here. Firstly, the cinematography and setting was just.....breathtaking. Close to the beginning when Bilbo popped his head out of the trees...the setting was just amazing. Every single setting in the movie was gorgeous. The cast was great and obviously what made the film for me was Smaug. Critics were not exaggerating when they claimed him to be the greatest dragon in the history of movies. I would watch this movie ten times over (and obviously skip through the filler) just for that scene.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Like others, I would have appreciated a 2 part movie but in this 3 part adaptation; I loved the cliffhanger ending. I was just so into it and then it abruptly ended and I was like what the fuck (in a good way though)








martryn said:


> *Beorn barely appeared in the movie, and I thought he looked a bit on the thin side.  I was thinking he'd look like an athletic version of Hagrid, but he didn't appear human, despite being a man.
> I would have liked to see more characterization of Beorn, and some extended scenes of the dwarfs at his house.  I wish Bilbo's encounters with Smaug would have followed the book more closely, as he makes more than one trip in there to visit Smaug.  Instead we get elf on dwarf love.



Martryn you hit the nail on the head my friend. Aside from Smaug, Beorn was the person I was really interested in seeing and they completely fucked up. I didn't mind his "look" as much as the fact that he was in the movie for like 10 minutes. We didn't even get to see him fuck shit up. The scene where Gandalf goes with a few hobbits to his house and tells Beorn their story while the number of hobbits keeps increasing was perhaps one of my favorite scenes in the book. It was hilarious and I thought Jackson would have payed special attention to it but nothing....

The love triangle was lame as fuck. I wouldn't have minded if it was just Tauriel and Kili but i'm used to Legolas being a cold, calculative mind, not the jealous type lol. 


*Spoiler*: __ 



one of my favorite scenes in the movie was when Smaug was explaining what effects the Arkenstone would have on Thorin and how it completely mirrored Bilbo and the ring. Brilliant.




Anyways, the third movie looks like it will be epic.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 14, 2013)

My review is in sig. I understand the grievances, but I personally dug the faster approach.


----------



## Lucciola (Dec 14, 2013)

Maybe it's just me, but the healing scene was so weird I had second hand embarrassment.  Other than that the movie was enjoyable.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 14, 2013)

Scene was definitely awkward.


----------



## Gabe (Dec 14, 2013)

I enjoyed the movie. Was that Peter Jackson in the start of the movie walking out of the bat and eating something?


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 14, 2013)

Just wanted to say, Bilbo Baggins >>>> His bitch grandson that needs to be constantly babysitted.


----------



## Bender (Dec 14, 2013)

Film gets a 9 out of 10

Definitely destroys the pacing problems which plagued the first film.


----------



## Fierce (Dec 14, 2013)

I thought the movie was about as decent as the first one (that is to say, nowhere near as good as the original trilogy), but it had added benefit of Smaug himself to give it a little boost. With that said, there were some cheesy scenes (like the first movie) and they shoehorned in a lot of filler action, which I guess is to be expected making a 300 page book into a trilogy.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 15, 2013)

Nothing against filler action. Legolas was unbelievably badass, as usual.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2013)

Another scene I thought was a bit silly was when Legolas had his confrontation with that orc in that Lake-town alley. The orc's trap for Legolas relied upon him attempting to combat him with a melee weapon--to get in close range. Of course, Legolas does try this... but why? Any other time than that one plot demanded occurrence, he would have just loosed an arrow and ended the fight before it even began.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 15, 2013)

People said this was the last time Orlando Bloom would ever play the character, but I don't see how would he not be in the next movie.

Everyone would be thinking "Where the fuck is Legolas? He was going after the orcs last time we saw him".

And obviously, he's right there in the village that Smaug is going to attack.


----------



## Yasha (Dec 15, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> The love triangle was lame as fuck. I wouldn't have minded if it was just Tauriel and Kili but i'm used to Legolas being a cold, calculative mind, not the jealous type lol.



It gives a personal dimension to his anti-dwarf sentiment. Who wouldn't want to put an arrow in every dwarf's throat if an elvish girl dumps you for a 5-ft tall dwarf? 




Stunna said:


> Apparently Evangeline Lilly (Tauriel) was promised when she signed on for the film that she wouldn't be forced into a love triangle.



Heh.

Prepare for Kili sacrificing himself for Tauriel or vice versa in the third movie.



Luiz said:


> People said this was the last time Orlando Bloom would ever play the character, but I don't see how would he not be in the next movie.
> 
> Everyone would be thinking "Where the fuck is Legolas? He was going after the orcs last time we saw him".
> 
> And obviously, he's right there in the village that Smaug is going to attack.



He has to be in the 
*Spoiler*: __ 



battle of the five armies


.

Fangirls will burn down theaters if he's not.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2013)

I'm hoping that after TABA is released some fans with editing skills will rework the trilogy into a duology, just to see how it works. Or edits out the Dol Guldur storyline. (Even if certain scenes like Gandalf leaving them before Mirkwood will be difficult.)


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Luiz said:


> And obviously, he's right there in the village that Smaug is going to attack.



Imagine if it's actually Legolas 
*Spoiler*: __ 



who will kill Smaug.


 That would be a total rape of the book. 

I'm wondering how PJ is going to make the White Coucil's attack on Dol Guldur. I don't think there's any accurate description on that in any of the books.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2013)

Sauron said:


> Imagine if it's actually Legolas
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...




Thorin and the Dwarves trying to kill Smaug was a total rape of the book, but it felt so good and so right I didn't mind.  However, don't worry about who gets to do _the_ thing - they've already fleshed up Bard for his righteous part. 



Sauron said:


> I'm wondering how PJ is going to make the White Coucil's attack on Dol Guldur. I don't think there's any accurate description on that in any of the books.




It's been speculated they'll conveniently mix up different occasions, and make Galadriel bring it down via magic. 

I don't think they'll bring armies with them there. We'll already have the climactic BO5A. PJ will probably want to give this confrontation its own style and feeling, so likely he'll keep it "a battle of wizards". 

Hmmm...

Thinking in retrospect, they should have left the Dol Guldur plot out of this. It feels unconnected, and only serves to make the main plot look less important: instead of upholding and backing up the main story, it just eats away from it.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 15, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Thinking in retrospect, they should have left the Dol Guldur plot out of this. It feels unconnected, and only serves to make the main plot look less important: instead of upholding and backing up the main story, it just eats away from it.



I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know if it really feels unconnected, but I think it's good PJ added that Dol Guldur plot. Otherwise Gandalf's disappearance would be a big plot hole to as why did he leave the dwarfs. And to avoid that plot hole, how do you just let the audience know where Gandalf left but never actually showing it? I don't think that would work.

I think adding Dol Guldur was one of the good changes in theory, as I haven't seen the movie yet.


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

What Sauron said. If there's anything I hate more it's hanging plot threads.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2013)

Sauron said:


> I haven't seen the movie yet so I don't know if it really feels unconnected, but I think it's good PJ added that Dol Guldur plot. Otherwise Gandalf's disappearance would be a big plot hole to as why did he leave the dwarfs. And to avoid that plot hole, how do you just let the audience know where Gandalf left but never actually showing it? I don't think that would work.




Well, it's all very subjective, but that's how it seems to me: it's an uneven marriage that never really works.

While the movies were yet in production, I was more interested in the Dol Guldur plot than in the main plot. But after seeing the first two films I've changed my mind about it. Any attempt there is to portray the Company's adventure as a charming tale on its own right is shot down by the constant reminder that yes, there's bigger things going on elsewhere. And then there's the attempts to give importance to the Dwarves's guest by linking it to Gandalf's guest. No, no, no. It makes me as a member of the audience question, which story PJ really would want to tell here. 

Yeah it's kind of nice to see Dol Guldur, Sauron, the White Council, but cinematically it's problematic. I also still think they should have told this story in two parts at the most, and that without the added material it would have been possible. Sometimes less just is more, no matter how vehemently PJ argues otherwise. 

Gandalf disappearing from the story could have been explained by some new invention, something that doesn't require an entire secondary plot running aside the actual story. They've changed so many other things, they could have changed this too.

However, perhaps I'll change my mind again after seeing TABA, and watching the Hobbit and LotR back-to-back.


----------



## Muk (Dec 15, 2013)

just came back from watching it

hmm the german translation is lacking, especially in the smaug encounter 

it was great watching it on 2d, 24fps. it didn't hurt my eyes, so that was awesome, but it certainly somehow felt lacking in the sound and impact with the translation voice.

maybe i'll go try and find it in english


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 15, 2013)

Weakest Lord of the Rings movie, felt very fillery, thought the music wasn't great. Stephen Fry cameo was meh and of course the love triangle was retarded, cheesy and completely unnecessary.

The barrel scene was awesome. Great action direction and Smaug was great, thought the bit with the mine carts and the gold was plain silly though.

EdiT; Yes, just reading through the thread, they couldn't give more screen time to huge bear man? Instead we get MY LOVE IS FAR AWAY WHAT IS THIS SHIIIIIIIIIIIIT


----------



## Bender (Dec 15, 2013)

@Delta Shell

It's Stephen Colbert.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2013)

Nah, bro. It was Stephen Fry.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2013)

Colbert was one of the Lake Town spies, I think. Though I didn't recognize him.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2013)

Wait, Colbert _was_ in this movie? lol I don't know about Delta, but I was thinking of the master of Lake-town.


----------



## Lucciola (Dec 15, 2013)

Colbert was the spy with eye patch appeared after Bard's son said that their house was being watched. Some fangirl screamed his name, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 15, 2013)




----------



## Stunna (Dec 15, 2013)

Yeah, I didn't notice.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 15, 2013)

I didn't give Thranduil much attention in his brief appearances in LoTR, but I absolutely loved him in this.



Sauron said:


> Imagine if it's actually Legolas
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> ...



He'll shoot a black arrow with his own bow. That's how boss Legolas is. 



Lucciola said:


> Maybe it's just me, but the healing scene was so weird I had second hand embarrassment.  Other than that the movie was enjoyable.



Oh man, that moment with Tauriel's face shining...


----------



## Yasha (Dec 15, 2013)

I wouldn't oppose to the idea of PJ taking the artistic liberty and making Legolas kill Kili out of jealousy amidst the chaos of the battle just for the lulz.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 15, 2013)

Amanda said:


> I'm hoping that after TABA is released some fans with editing skills will rework the trilogy into a duology, just to see how it works. Or edits out the Dol Guldur storyline. (Even if certain scenes like Gandalf leaving them before Mirkwood will be difficult.)



Challenge accepted, it wouldn't be the first movie that I edit into a decent picture.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 16, 2013)

Luiz said:


> I didn't give Thranduil much attention in his brief appearances in LoTR, but I absolutely loved him in this.



In AUJ you mean 


Legolas probably will be the one to kill Bolg while Thorin obviously kills Azog. Beorn and Dain, take a rest 

Also about Bolg - i just saw gifs with him and why the hell they changed his appearence. Shouldn`t he look like this


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2013)

Luiz said:


> He'll shoot a black arrow with his own bow. That's how boss Legolas is.





*Spoiler*: _Like this?_ 





By 








Suigetsu said:


> Challenge accepted, it wouldn't be the first movie that Edited into a decent picture.




Awesome!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 16, 2013)




----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

gershwin said:


> In AUJ you mean



Didn't Thranduil show up to lend his help in The Two Towers and then got killed?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 16, 2013)

Another and now official poster:


----------



## gershwin (Dec 16, 2013)

^ Wow thats amazing!



Luiz said:


> Didn't Thranduil show up to lend his help in The Two Towers and then got killed?



Lol it was Haldir


----------



## soulnova (Dec 16, 2013)

When I saw Tauriel I was expecting to dislike her as "legolas wanna be girlfriend" but then...

... Well, I would have giggled like a silly teenage girl if Kili made the same passes at me.  







Although...

*Spoiler*: _Book Spoiler.... is this even necessary?_ 



 It saddens me Kili's future is not going to allow much (if I remember correctly), unless PJ decides to change the ending, which would in turn summon chaos and destruction among the book's purists.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Lol it was Haldir



Cut me some slack, these motherfuckers look all the same.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2013)

Just saw the movie, and it was better than previous one I think, certainly not Lord of the Rings level though. But in the end I was disappointed with this movie aswell.

Why the flying fuck did PJ went through Beorn scene like it was for nothing but still he wanted to put that god awful lovestory. Tauriel as a character was fine and nice eye candy but that lovestory!  I also think that spider scene in Mirkwood was just too much about that ADHD sword swinging.
From the added material I did like Dol Guldur parts but I think they were kinda necessary. But that short 
*Spoiler*: __ 



Gandalf vs. Necromancer battle


 reminded me a little too much about Harry Potter films for some reason, which isn't a good thing.

And finally the main star himself, Smaug! Definitely one of the best dragons in movie history. Andy Serkis stole the show as Gollum in Two Towers and Benedict Cumberbatch stole the show as Smaug here. Btw, in the books, Bilbo realized Smaug's weakness was that on his belly there was a spot without diamonds, making it possible for an arrow to penetrate it. Here it was some weird thing that you have to shoot it twice in the exact same spot with a black arrow. I am wondering why PJ couldn't just use the original idea.

As a book adaption this movie was the same quality as the previous one, maybe slightly lower because of the lovestory and unnecessary changes. But if we don't compare it to the book, I think it was decent, slightly better.

The 3rd film will be without a doubt the same I fear. :/ Definitely these should have been only 2 films.

EDIT:



martryn said:


> My biggest complaint wasn't the stuff they put into the film, though, but the bits they took out to make room for this stuff that wasn't in the book.  If you're going to give us three movies for a book only 300 pages long, why leave anything out?  I would have liked a scene of Bombur falling into a stream in Mirkwood and falling asleep for days, or any of the other little scenes in that took place in Mirkwood.  I would have liked to see more characterization of Beorn, and some extended scenes of the dwarfs at his house.  I wish Bilbo's encounters with Smaug would have followed the book more closely, as he makes more than one trip in there to visit Smaug.  Instead we get elf on dwarf love.



This is also what I would have liked to see in the movie. Guess I must wait for the extended edition.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 16, 2013)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


>



I said it once and I'll say it again. I like more the design that John Howe did:


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

Nah. That one's head is like 80% mouth.


----------



## Rax (Dec 16, 2013)

Saw the midnight release.

Was awesome


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2013)

It must sound like I hated the movie. I didn't, it was entertaining and I'll see it again. It's just, I can't help but to think these movies don't live up to their full potential.



Sauron said:


> Definitely these should have been only 2 films.




Yep. They also should have sticked to the more organic approach to film making. The overuse of (ugly) CGI is all the harder to deal with, after we had already witnessed the beauty of LotR's miniatures and prosthetics.

Just look at these lovely Orcs and Uruks. Damn, I loved them so much, and was excited to hear we'd get more Orc characters. 

[YOUTUBE]iSKtx2A1X80[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]dc6aciIhO6c[/YOUTUBE]

What's the point of technology if it makes things worse?


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

Speaking of which, is there any explanation for why Azog looks like a completely different creature in comparison to his orcish kin?


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 16, 2013)

Luiz said:


> Speaking of which, is there any explanation for why Azog looks like a completely different creature in comparison to his orcish kin?



1ST Age Orc maybe?


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2013)

Luiz said:


> Speaking of which, is there any explanation for why Azog looks like a completely different creature in comparison to his orcish kin?



Maybe he's an albino lol.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

He's also larger and his face isn't as screwed up as other orcs. Some special genes there.

But yeah, albino works for me.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 16, 2013)

The same reason why Thorin is a hottie in comparison to other dwarves


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2013)

gershwin said:


> The same reason why Thorin is a hottie in comparison to other dwarves




You mean the same reason why the Na'vi of Avatar were re-designed to look more human?


----------



## gershwin (Dec 16, 2013)

Exactly


----------



## Joakim Mogren (Dec 16, 2013)

Luiz said:


> Speaking of which, is there any explanation for why Azog looks like a completely different creature in comparison to his orcish kin?


So that this part of the audience could get that he's the main bad guy.



Not even kidding, that's how it works.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 16, 2013)

Amanda said:


> You mean the same reason why the Na'vi of Avatar were re-designed to look more human?



Because it was a movie made for Humans? Well at least that's what J.Cam said.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 16, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> Because it was a movie made for Humans? Well at least that's what J.Cam said.




I take offense to the implication that I can't sympathize with life forms that don't live up to human beauty standards. 

Though if we're speaking of the Dwarves, I personally always envisioned them as pretty humanesque, only smaller and more stunted. LotR's Gimli looked too much like a Michelin man, while this illustration of Thorin by John Howe from 2003 is pretty good:


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 16, 2013)

Redlettermedia's view on Desolation of Smaug:


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 16, 2013)

I really enjoyed this movie can't wait for the next one. 

Some of these complaints makes no sense to me, but i guess thats to be expected as i have never read the book.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 16, 2013)

Amanda said:


> I take offense to the implication that I can't sympathize with life forms that don't live up to human beauty standards.
> 
> Though if we're speaking of the Dwarves, I personally always envisioned them as pretty humanesque, only smaller and more stunted. LotR's Gimli looked too much like a Michelin man, while this illustration of Thorin by John Howe from 2003 is pretty good:



Thorin was the latest heir to the Dwarven throne at that time, he can't be depicted as an elderly man.


----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 17, 2013)

The last 10 seconds of the movie made the entire theater groan so loud it sounded like the stricture was collapsing


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2013)

Loved the movie but hated how they screwed with Smaug's famous speech, was expecting the  STRONG STRONG STRONG moment and it never came, infact the whole speech is broken due to the scenes cutting and used at different moments. When he said "I am.." I expected him to say  STRONG but instead we got "death". PJ could'nt have just let Smaug say that speech uninterrupted and properly?Fans really wanted to see that moment and were robbed. Perhaps a director's cut with Smaug's speech in all it's glory?And while this one is minor I think the scene where Smaug has a hypnotic effect with his eyes would have been nice as well. They also did'nt go with the uses gold to hide his weakspot tactic which was one of the things that highlighted his intelligence and resourcefulness.

Only complaints but otherwise I think BC is amazing voice for Smaug or a dragon or anything requiring magnificent bastardry, tops Connery's voice in Dragonheat too IMO. The theatre really went WAT so to speak when the scene cut to the credits 

Well Jackson's overpowering of Legolas is there too but the fights were so awesome I can't complain too much. In the end it's a great popcorn flick but a shadow of the original material but I think most book fans went in expecting it as that.

8/10 popcorn flick and I may go watch it again.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2013)

Luiz said:


> Thorin was the latest heir to the Dwarven throne at that time, he can't be depicted as an elderly man.




Oh I agree about that. 

Many of the changes PJ's script writing team made were right, and improved the story. De-aging Thorin, giving the Dwarves more individuality, making the story more about reclaiming their homeland than reclaiming the gold, making Thorin have an actual plan of what he intends to do once he gets to the Mountain, letting him have a showdown with Smaug, fleshing out Bard, fleshing out the Woodelves... yeah, I even liked the romance, and thought it brought another angle to the Dwarf-Elf hostility. 

And I don't mind the humanesque Dwarves - as said, I've always imagined them pretty human-like.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2013)

Agree with most of this.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 17, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Loved the movie but hated how they screwed with Smaug's famous speech, was expecting the  STRONG STRONG STRONG moment and it never came, infact the whole speech is broken due to the scenes cutting and used at different moments. When he said "I am.." I expected him to say  STRONG but instead we got "death".



If he had said that I would have been like "...Yeah, so?"

Calling himself death incarnate has more impact than simply saying "I am strong".



Amanda said:


> Oh I agree about that.
> 
> Many of the changes PJ's script writing team made were right, and improved the story. De-aging Thorin, giving the Dwarves more individuality, making the story more about reclaiming their homeland than reclaiming the gold, making Thorin have an actual plan of what he intends to do once he gets to the Mountain, letting him have a showdown with Smaug, fleshing out Bard, fleshing out the Woodelves... yeah, I even liked the romance, and thought it brought another angle to the Dwarf-Elf hostility.
> 
> And I don't mind the humanesque Dwarves - as said, I've always imagined them pretty human-like.



It wouldn't be interesting if all dwarves looked the same as Gimli.



Guriko of Suzuran said:


> The last 10 seconds of the movie made the entire theater groan so loud it sounded like the stricture was collapsing



That's what a cliffhanger is meant to accomplish. Everyone going "Nooo, I want to see the rest!


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 17, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Agree with most of this.



This guy nailed it.

*Spoiler*: __ 




The Lake town drama was pointless and took like an entire hour of film. An entire hour that could had been put to better use.
It really liked the charm and the pretty things that the book had, and I am not talking about not being how I envisioned but about actual things that happened in the book.
Like the Dwarves arriving one by one to Beorn's house while they told him their story in order to convince him to let them stay. In the FOREST when the spiders go batshit scared of Sting. The white stag in the forest.

Also Orcs getting inside Mirkwood and killing the wood elves just like that? That was an omega fan fiction. Also the necromancer story in the appendix was never like what happened in the movie, it was a total fan fiction. If you folks like fan fictions then well, this is your movie.




And please dont give me the "Oh my I was not going to do a carbon copy of the book" poor lame excuse.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 17, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> This guy nailed it.
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> ...



I wanted to see Bombur falling in that river that makes you fall asleep in Mirkwood. And the other dwarfs having to carry him with them. It would have made a nice comedy scene. And there was missing some content between Bilbo and the Spiders, if I remember right, in the book Bilbo teases them a bit while being invicible, correct me if I'm wrong. But instead of adding those things that were in the book, PJ wanted to make overlong sword fight scene with the spiders. And movie definitely needed more Beorn but I suspect PJ decided to leave his time short because he's gonna add more of his scenes in extended edition.

Personally I liked Necromancer stuff, I don't think Tolkien never really described the events when Gandalf went there? Or did he? I didn't fancy too much about those graves of Ringwraiths though, at the time in the books they were in Mordor. And obviously Witch-King never died in Angmar.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2013)

> If he had said that I would have been like "...Yeah, so?"
> 
> Calling himself death incarnate has more impact than simply saying "I am strong".



Sigh the way his speech was broken up that the lines were divided between different scenes I expected him to finish the last sentence of his speech with his I AM STRONG STRONG STRONG line since he had already said most of the rest of the speech in different scenes and at times after different conversations(which was stupid way to use those lines).

Jackson did not do that speech properly, either do it properly or don't do it at all. Think of any famous movie speech and imagine if it's broken up by scene changes or has a part of it mentioned after a completely different convo or even a chase scene in between as opposed to hearing the whole speech properly. 

Smaug is narcissistic and his speech is basically a badass boast aka a villain hyping himself up and chewing scenary(he did do that atleast). So that very famous speech known to Tolkien fans which Jackson only half put in as a fanservice was bad. If he wanted to give fans the speech, go full on the fanservice and give the full speech without interruption. 



> Also the necromancer story in the appendix was never like what happened in the movie, it was a total fan fiction.



It did'nt but certainly more interesting I'd argue. Do think one movie would have been enough or if they really wanted to milk it maybe two. A good chunk of movie 1 is not needed and movie 2 is an even bigger waste. You could have combined 1 and 2 into a single movie without the filler.

I'm also in agreement with most of that list as said.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 17, 2013)

Sauron said:


> And obviously Witch-King never died in Angmar.



Heh what about Khamul, didnt he like Died in Rhun? And that's Very very freaking far from Angmar.

This was like Return of the king 2, people where laughing when it was supposed to be serious and called it trash in the cinema.

Now I did enjoy it except: The akward forced romance triangle and the republic of the lake in the town where they want to capture Bard for no freaking reason.
Also wasnt Bard like the Leader of the people in the book?


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 17, 2013)

Guriko of Suzuran said:


> The last 10 seconds of the movie made the entire theater groan so loud it sounded like the stricture was collapsing



i think ur right about this, but i thought it was more of a moment of deflation, at the showing i went to, the theater was dead quiet at the end, a sort of anti climatic feeling. 

i'm saying that despite the fact that i enjoyed the movie greatly, love the HFR, it was a little easier on the eyes this time, don't know if they changed anything.  

Was the dragon designed in any part by del toro?  I felt like it wasn't , and del toros influences were limited to the orc "major"(?) that was hunting the dwarves into laketown.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 17, 2013)

so smaug was supposed to say " i am strong.."?    that might have been better.  driven smaug's ego home, even though the rest of the speech made his ego known, the "death" line was a little generic.


----------



## martryn (Dec 17, 2013)

> 1a. That giant statue of molten gold. During what has been referred to in The Atlantic as the dwarves' "MacGyveresque" battle with Smaug -- a term which, incredibly, makes it sound more plausible than it was -- Thorin's final gambit involves drowning Smaug in a lake of molten gold. Putting aside that Thorin knows, as we all know, that dragons already have inside of them a substance as hot as molten gold, making immolating a dragon with molten gold an impossibility, does anyone know why the massive dwarven totem Thorin stands atop during this desperate attack is filled with molten gold in the first place? And -- moreover -- molten gold that comes out if you just pull a couple chains really hard? Sure, the dwarves had just lit the forges of Erebor -- itself an unlikely feat under the circumstances, especially in the time allotted for it -- but are we really to believe that the second the forges are fired up, elsewhere in the dwarven stronghold a fifty-foot high statue of a dwarven king instantly explodes, presumably killing everyone standing anywhere near it?



Actually don't have an issue with this.  The mold for the statue was presumably already in place, and the final statue not yet created when the dragon attacked, so it has stood, ready and undisturbed, for however long.  It's not too much of a stretch to say that the dwarves had all that molten gold ready to go in the forges or whatever, or that dragon fire burns hot enough to expedite the process of melting the gold down.  And, again, just because a dragon can breathe liquid fire, doesn't mean it can survive being drowned in molten gold.  We have stomach acid which would burn the fuck out of us if we were drowned in a river of it.  The real issue here is that the Hall of Kings is adjacent to the forges, which, again, isn't that much of a stretch considering how much dwarves revere metalworking and gemcraft. 



> 1b. Thorin's sledding adventure. Assuming for a moment that molten gold can't melt metal -- and try to wrap your head around that one for a moment -- can we at least agree that it heats it up to a temperature you could cook food with? Well, Peter Jackson does not agree, as he has Thorin use a metal sled to body-surf several hundred yards on a river of molten gold with no indication whatsoever that the trip was uncomfortable in the least.



While cartoonish and silly, a dwarf's constitution and hardiness probably accounts for that.  The dwarfs were created to work with stone and hot metal.  They are probably more resilient against heat.



> 2. Esgaroth/Lake-town. Where did Jackson get his conception of Tolkien's fictional republic? In the hands of Jackson, Lake-town becomes the domain of an unelected despot whose rule of law extends no farther than a jackboot kicking down doors at midnight.



While an uncredited sideplot, this drama in Laketown does set up the two factions of men in the end of The Hobbit.  Obviously Stephen Fry's character has no fucking clue what's going on, and just wants to put an end to all this unrest in his town.  His adviser with the greasy mustache (I think, I've only seen the film once) is looking for a scapegoat to hide his own incompetence, and because he had a spat with Bard earlier that day, decides to stir up a conspiracy that doesn't exist.  I find it believable.  



> 3. Gandalf taking on a reincarnated Sauron and several thousand orcs by himself.



This is also baffling.  Did Gandalf think he could suicide run at Sauron and end the threat here and now, or perhaps he wanted to expose the illusion and the evil present to move the good guys into action when they seemed hesitant earlier.  Baffling. 



> 4. Thorin's transformation.



Again, not sure what's going on here.  I'm assuming Jackson wanted to portray Thorin as a dick multiple times so we have a precedent in the third movie when Thorin is a dick throughout.  Still, that's some sloppy fucking writing.



> 5. Jackson's cinematic selfie. The first person to appear on-screen in The Desolation of Smaug is Jackson himself, hooded and chewing a carrot.



He's going to complain about this?  A lot of directors pull this shit, and it's not like Jackson had an invasive cameo.  I was so excited for the movie to begin, that I didn't even register that this was Jackson, and later in the film I started looking around for Jackson because I knew he liked sticking himself into these films.  It's better that this happened at the very beginning, anyways, as anyone bothered by it has ample time to forget before the good parts of the film show up.



> Narrowly missing the list: An elf-dwarf love interest that not only never appeared in Tolkien's texts but is antithetical to the world Tolkien created



Surprised this wasn't #1 as it's by far the most disturbing bit of the film.  



> Smaug's sudden inability to smell dwarf-flesh following his initial encounter with Bilbo (in which he brags about that exact skill-set)



Again, should be higher on the list.  Not only that, but Smaug deciding to chase whatever dwarf happens to be yelling at him at the time.  Why not take a second and kill a few of them before you turn completely around to narrowly miss someone who obviously wants to provide a distraction. 



> the alacrity with which the dwarves give up on their quest when they can't find a keyhole at the appointed time (a resignation we actually do find in the dwarves in Tolkien's The Hobbit, but rarely elsewhere in the Jackson films)



They gave up absurdly quick in the movie, though.  It was crazy.  And the fact that they dropped the key.  Dwarves live for hundreds of years.  Waiting until the next year to try again never crossed your mind?



> the creation, from whole cloth, of a top lieutenant to the orc leader Azog -- an imposing character named Bolg, whose only role in the film is to look menacing and lead troops ineffectually.



Didn't bother me.  You'd actually assume that the orcs had ranks like this, so fleshing one out to fill in some time in a three hour movie actually makes sense.



> Also wasnt Bard like the Leader of the people in the book?



Bard was a descendant of the King of Dale, who died when Smaug first attacked.  The Master of Laketown was in the book, and Bard was just a guard.  I think Laketown and Dale had existed simultaneously, but Smaug didn't need to destroy Laketown to get to the dwarves' hoard of gold, but he did have to go through Dale.  In the last chapters of the book, after Smaug is dead (spoiler alert), Bard leads a faction of men to rebuild Dale, and he becomes man's representative in the councils leading up to the Battle of Five Armies.


----------



## martryn (Dec 17, 2013)

I was afraid the film was going to stop with the death of Smaug.  Pleased it stopped when it did.  It follows the chapters of the book this way, if you were going to break the book into three equal parts.  If you do it by chapters:
Part 1: Ends with the rescue by the eagles.
Part 2: Ends with Smaug flying to Laketown.

If you break it up by page #:
Part 1: Ends with the wargs trapping the dwarves in the trees.
Part 2: Ends with the dwarves leaving Laketown.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2013)

martryn said:


> It follows the chapters of the book this way, if you were going to break the book into three equal parts.  If you do it by chapters:
> Part 1: Ends with the rescue by the eagles.
> Part 2: Ends with Smaug flying to Laketown.




The problem is that the book wasn't written with the intention of each of those three parts being also three independent acts with some inner coherence. It was written to be read chapter by chapter each night, as a bedtime story.

The film script was originally intended to be told in two parts, and the first movie to end at the escape from Wood-elves. I think it can be seen in DOS. After the escape, there begins a wholly new phase with lot of exposition, the kind you usually get at the _beginning_ of a film.

By the way, I would have liked to see a scene like this...:


----------



## eHav (Dec 17, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Agree with most of this.



really? because his comment about the golden statue is just retarded.

they fired up the furnaces with the dragons own fire, wich started melting the gold, the molten gold went into a cast, which made the outside of the molten gold solidify, or at least become harder. when the cast was removed it simply gave in since it wasnt ready to be removed yet. i thought that much was pretty obvious.

tho dronwing a fire breathing dragon that can melt gold, in molten gold is pretty dumb


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 17, 2013)

Stunna said:


> Wait, Colbert _was_ in this movie? lol I don't know about Delta, but I was thinking of the master of Lake-town.



Yeah that was Stephen Fry camping it up. Didn't even notice Colbert although I do remember fake eye patch man.

Also Legolas totally killing Smaug hahaha. I think he has an auto-kill cheat activated or some shit.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Sigh the way his speech was broken up that the lines were divided between different scenes I expected him to finish the last sentence of his speech with his I AM STRONG STRONG STRONG line since he had already said most of the rest of the speech in different scenes and at times after different conversations(which was stupid way to use those lines).
> 
> Jackson did not do that speech properly, either do it properly or don't do it at all. Think of any famous movie speech and imagine if it's broken up by scene changes or has a part of it mentioned after a completely different convo or even a chase scene in between as opposed to hearing the whole speech properly.
> 
> ...



Agreed. I was also very concerned at the lack of Beorn....

In regards to your last paragraph. Doesn't this necromancer story kind of contradict the fellowship of the ring? I mean, Gandalf had no clue of the name Sauron or that anything big was happening in the fellowship and over here, right away, he was like; "Sauron". Also, isn't he supposed to meet Thorins dad in the jails there or will that be in the next movie?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2013)

No clue of the name Sauron?He's a Maia and Sauron is one such as well who fell to Morgoth. He'd very much know who Sauron is due to being many thousands of years old and coming from a higher plane. He knows about Rings of power and notes even the strongest Dragon fire cannot burn The One Ring(they can burn lesser Rings though) IIRC.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> No clue of the name Sauron?He's a Maia and Sauron is one such as well who fell to Morgoth. He'd very much know who Sauron is due to being many thousands of years old and coming from a higher plane. He knows about Rings of power and notes even the strongest Dragon fire cannot burn The One Ring(they can burn lesser Rings though) IIRC.



Oh true. I pretty much agree with everything in that website you posted. I think Jackson is delving way too deep into fan-fiction. I mean if you're going to make a trilogy out of one book then at least don't leave things out.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2013)

Lucciola said:


> Colbert was the spy with eye patch appeared after Bard's son said that their house was being watched. Some fangirl screamed his name, otherwise I wouldn't have noticed.



Oh Colbert 

Can't wait to see the flick again on Thursday. pek pek Keeps my eyes peeled and look out fer my boy Colbert.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 17, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Also, isn't he supposed to meet Thorins dad in the jails there or will that be in the next movie?



Thrain will appear only in extended editions.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Thrain will appear only in extended editions.




Has this been confirmed? I thought we'd see him in TABA. It's weird if they edit him out of all theatrical releases after already bothering to mention him in DOS.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 17, 2013)

I`m not sure about TABA, but seems we won`t. Only EE


> *When we last spoke at the premiere of the first Hobbit movie, I asked you about something that you said would be in the second movie, and then it wasn't. So I have to ask: Why we didn't see Thr?in, Thorin Oakenshield's father, give Gandalf the map and key?*
> Ah, yes. That's going to be in the extended cut of the second film. In the end, it became about length and time and pace, and yeah, it's a very important part of the storytelling, but really, that's part of the brutality of filmmaking. As much as it informs Thorin's story, you're bringing in yet another character that you have to explain. We did actually shoot it. But Peter made the decision that this stuff is going to work best in the extended cut. If you're a Tolkien fan, you're going to want to see how this plays out.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 17, 2013)

martryn said:


> And, again, just because a dragon can breathe liquid fire, doesn't mean it can survive being drowned in molten gold.  We have stomach acid which would burn the fuck out of us if we were drowned in a river of it.



It wasn't intended to be understood as "He's fireproof because he breathes fire".

It was Smaug's unique scaly cuirass that protected him.



> Again, not sure what's going on here.  I'm assuming Jackson wanted to portray Thorin as a dick multiple times so we have a precedent in the third movie when Thorin is a dick throughout.  Still, that's some sloppy fucking writing.



Not exactly shocking. We already knew he was obsessed with this quest.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 17, 2013)

smaugh is fireproof because his scales are so deeply armoured that they are not as much fire retardant, as they are tough as all hell retardant

Dragons in tolkien verse exist on the account of a magical mutation, not a biological evolution


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 17, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> smaugh is fireproof because his scales are so deeply armoured that they are not as much fire retardant, as they are tough as all hell retardant
> 
> *Dragons in tolkien verse exist on the account of a magical mutation, not a biological evolution*



Didn't think I would be agreeing with you so soon but basically this ^


----------



## Kuya (Dec 18, 2013)

I wish they had more of the bear guy, he was my favorite in the book.

Watched it stoned and it was the high frame rate. Such a good movie to watch when high, i left satisfied.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 18, 2013)

i thought that we would see thorin's father too, in the first movie their was an air of mystery surrounding the fate of his father, they only said "he was dead or driven insane" or something that seemed to make him useless to the story.  but obviously it was left as a hanging plot point that could the writers could go back to and make things interesting. they in fact haven't done so yet.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2013)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> but obviously it was left as a hanging plot point that could the writers could go back to and make things interesting. they in fact haven't done so yet.




Considering that we're talking about a director who chose to leave the resolution of Saruman's entire story arc to the Extended Edition.... 

By Kassandros from TORn:



> *Breaking News: Benedict Cumberbatch will not be in There And Back Again*
> 
> just heard that Benedict Cumberbatch (Smaug) will not be part of the theatrical release of the third Hobbit movie. Peter Jackson has explained that this is unfortunate but the cut needed to be made for reasons of pace. Spending a great deal of time at the beginning of There And Back Again dealing with Smaug's fate would grind the movie to a halt and distract from the real story, namely the heroic exploits of Legolas and Tauriel in their fight against Sauron and his orc minions.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2013)

@Jackson

Why man? Why? 

Lol @ calling Bene "smog"


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 18, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Considering that we're talking about a director who chose to leave the resolution of Saruman's entire story arc to the Extended Edition....
> 
> By Kassandros from TORn:
> 
> ...




Haha, for a minute there I almost believed that and nearly started to rage until I read the whole thing. 

That would have been the worst thing ever done to these movies.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2013)

> In the end, it became about length and time and pace, and yeah, it's a very important part of the storytelling, but really, that's part of the brutality of filmmaking



Or you know?Not make 87% or more of two movies filler and add a whole new character and love triangle not even in the books to waste time. Jackson could have done that so he does'nt get this excuse.

About the Smaug being covered in gold, I thought it was meant to be a joke on one of his names "Smaug The Golden". 

I lol'd at that fake report because it actually could happen.


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2013)

Ok lol lol 

You rock Amanda.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 18, 2013)

Amanda said:


> Considering that we're talking about a director who chose to leave the resolution of Saruman's entire story arc to the Extended Edition....
> 
> By Kassandros from TORn:
> l



After the Hobbit Triology prepare for the Epic two part of THE SCOURING OF THE SHIRE! Where Sauram will lead hordes of Bandits against Farmer Maggot's dogs and Pippin will be the new Aragorn.
Crazy love triangles where Sam will have to choose between Frodo and Rosie Cotton.
Who will save the say from this epic finale?!

Seriously now that they ran out of movies they will start to milk the appendixes, and the Hobbit movies proved that they barely need three lines of description in order to make a 3 hour long fan fiction.

As for Smaug the gold, well he became gold because of all the time that he spent sleeping over gold right? And it upset me that t
*Spoiler*: __ 



hey took the parts where smaug is bragging about his golden armour. And about the talking bird that tells Bard where to shoot, pulling that out was such a lame move.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2013)

Yeah Smaug the Gold was due to him covering himself in gold but the joke would be more literal with actual gold covering his body making him a golden dragon for a short duration. I agree with the rest, he took out the golden armor he wore to cover his weakness(which showed his creativity) and the bird was only used to show the opening. I fear Legolas will kill Smaug or assist in it after Bilbo tells about the weakness he saw.

It's one of the problems with the Smaug scenes, he extended them but removed the main parts(even ignoring the speech he should'nt have done that).


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 18, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]nlNr-Vf9L2c[/YOUTUBE]

Not sure if it was posted.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 18, 2013)

^what am I supposed to get from that video?


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 18, 2013)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Yeah Smaug the Gold was due to him covering himself in gold but the joke would be more literal with actual gold covering his body making him a golden dragon for a short duration. I agree with the rest, he took out the golden armor he wore to cover his weakness(which showed his creativity) and the bird was only used to show the opening. I fear Legolas will kill Smaug or assist in it after Bilbo tells about the weakness he saw.
> 
> It's one of the problems with the Smaug scenes, he extended them but removed the main parts(even ignoring the speech he should'nt have done that).



Unforgivable, and don't come at me with the crap of "I am not doing a carbon copy of the book" cause that's a lazy shit excuse for doing a fan fiction on an extremely loose adaptation in this obvious cash grab. "we dont know how to make short movies" Again Shenanigans, 80% of the movie was filler and the past one was plagued with filler as well.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 18, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> Unforgivable, and don't come at me with the crap of "I am not doing a carbon copy of the book" cause that's a lazy shit excuse for doing a fan fiction on an extremely loose adaptation in this obvious cash grab. "we dont know how to make short movies" Again Shenanigans, 80% of the movie was filler and the past one was plagued with filler as well.



I know man that was hugely disappointing. I enjoyed the movie for what it was but everything it COULD have become by simply choosing to follow the narrative of the book is what haunts me.


----------



## Table (Dec 19, 2013)

I think the one fault I've found in the Hobbit movies thus far is that Jackson's left out a lot of the cheerfulness that was in the actual book.  The first movie did the book justice, but I found the second one a bit too grim, and now I'm fearful the third installation will be a freaking sob-fest violent mess.  DOS should have been a bit of a better medium between the 1st and 3rd...... I really think Jackson missed out on a huge opportunity in Mirkwood by not upping the hallucinating/elvish trickery/ elvish alcoholism and general party tiempos....  Also the complete lack of singing.....but anyway.  Maybe there will be some in the extended edition DVD (liiiike naked dwarf fountain bathing in Rivendell??? yesssss)

Looking forward to the 3rd movie all the same.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 19, 2013)

Finaly watched it. Curse distributors for releasing it so late 

I can`t even recall any other movie that left me with SUCH mixed impressions. On one hand i totaly loved it. Less than AUJ, but still i think it was amazing. On the other - i completely understand those who are disappointed.  DOS is something i would expect more from Pirates of the Caribbean than from middle earth franchise.

For me the best things were Mirkwood, Necromancer, dragon and Legolas  I usualy don`t like action scenes, but his are allways hilarious. Allways 

There are two things that left me kinda  though.  Romance subplot and Thranduil. About love triangle i knew pretty much everything from spoilers, but still i don`t understand Tauriel. She acts as if she was interested in Legolas - but then she goes for Kili. Like wtf - what do you even want? Also, again - i loved Tau/Kili stuff and even ship them now, but how incredibly cheesy was their every single scene  He is in trouble - shining heroine comes and rescues him in the last moment. And it was repeated 4 (!) times. 
Thranduil I honestly can`t say what i feel about. To me it seemed Lee is seriously overacting, Everyone complain about how there is not enough of him in the movie while i think i wouldn`t handle more of his flamboyance, honestly - even though i enjoyed his scenes


----------



## Parallax (Dec 19, 2013)

This was mediocre

I'm mad as fuck I paid $16 for this :|


----------



## Stunna (Dec 19, 2013)

$16? That's   OD.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 19, 2013)

I don't even know what that means

man fuck you Stunna you made me mad for no good reason >:[


----------



## Stunna (Dec 19, 2013)

I'm sympathizing with your wasted money. :[


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 19, 2013)

i haven't noticed anybody mentioned the blacks they quietly snuck into the movie...i almost got up and gave a standing ovation when i finally saw some non-orc black faces in the hobbit, almost 6 movies in.  peter jackson seems to have effectively snuck them in since nobody really remarked.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 19, 2013)

they also had 1 asian person


----------



## Easley (Dec 19, 2013)

The Hobbit should have been one 3 hour movie. Everything important would fit nicely in that runtime.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2013)

Easley said:


> The Hobbit should have been one 3 hour movie. Everything important would fit nicely in that runtime.



Nah, one 3 hour movie wouldn't have done it justice. Should be two 3 hour movies.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 19, 2013)

well, trilogies are still more aesthitic, and would make more money, it could have been 3-2 hour movies


----------



## Easley (Dec 19, 2013)

A trilogy is more prestigious, but remember when Hollywood epics were one film over 3 hours?

Ten Commandments, Ben Hur, Spartacus, El Cid.... etc.

I think Jackson is being self-indulgent to be honest (unless the studio insisted). 
Lord of the Rings deserved a trilogy, but The Hobbit is lacking in material for 3 movies at almost 3 hours each. That's 9 hours! wow.

I doubt they'll ever film the Silmarillion, but even a trilogy wouldn't be enough...


----------



## Table (Dec 20, 2013)

I just want there to be more dwarf antics...and songs.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 21, 2013)

i do miss the songs , there was 2 in pt 1 alone!  that light heartedness was lost in this movie.


----------



## Jαmes (Dec 21, 2013)

this comparison between the books and the movies are becoming more and more lame. 

just take the movie as it is. follow the storyline of the movie and not the book unless you're ready to take disappointment like a man. or a woman.


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

@Parallax

You should of bought the bootleg the . That's what I do for films I know are complete and total shit. Like "Man of steel". 

The Hobbit was worth your money. You know it's true.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 21, 2013)

It was at least much better than 'Man of Steel'.


----------



## Parallax (Dec 21, 2013)

they're both about the same tbh


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

@Stunna

And that's all that it takes to enjoy a good flick. 

@Parallax

You're a monster.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 21, 2013)

You'd give 'Hobbit' a C. I agree. I'd give 'Man of Steel', like, a D.


----------



## Harbour (Dec 21, 2013)

Id give the second movie 6 out of 10.
-I didnt get elf-dwarf-elf triangle. Pointless shit.
-Pretty lame chroma key and CGI-animation.
-Id say that each fight scene from this movie sucks in compare with simple this:
[YOUTUBE]dc6aciIhO6c[/YOUTUBE]
Jackson too overused CGI in fights between elfs and orcs. The fight looks unessential and boring.
-Soundtrack is really weak. I dont remember any theme from this movie.

-I liked the Green Forests.
-I liked Bard. Evans finally make his character solid and attractive.
-I liked the Smaug. The Benedict make excellent work. 


Actually the 2/3 of the movie looked like different movie. Id called it "Legolas against the Orcs: Tauriel strikes back!" Too many elfs, too many jumps, too many CGI.
The last 1/3 of the movie was good movie about the dwarfs, hobbit, Bard and Smaug. I like it.
But at the whole Jackson failed hard.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 21, 2013)

Parallax said:


> they're both about the same tbh



lol. Not even close. Smaug alone > entire MOS movie.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 21, 2013)

Harbour said:


> Id give the second movie 6 out of 10.
> -I didnt get elf-dwarf-elf triangle. Pointless shit.
> -Pretty lame chroma key and CGI-animation.
> -Id say that each fight scene from this movie sucks in compare with simple this:
> ...



I disagree on the CGI part. I think the CGI and action setpieces were brilliant. I also enjoyed seeing Legolas kick ass. 

The bolded though, I could not agree more. Perhaps one of the most appealing (for me at least) features of both LOTR and AUJ was the soundtrack. The soundtrack for this one was incredibly weak. There were parts the could have been so much more emotional than they were by just adding that signature soundtrack. THe only time I appreciated it in this film was when Bard found out about the prophecy/ the dwarves saw their dead kin (same music) and when Tauriel was talking to Kili in Mirkwood.


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

LOTR films CGI is beautiful. Much better than any shit from flicks like MOS and Michael Bay's traumatizingly bad Transformers flicks.

The only point I'll give you Harbour is the gripe about the soundtrack. Definitely not as powerful as LOTR film ones.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 21, 2013)

terrible soundtrack, the opening scenes are frankly amateurish, the LOTR decompression filler was abused while much more classical and pivotal scenes, like the battle of the spiders and beorn were practically footnotes.

Also there were plot point that could have done with a lot more work, like pretending the Necromancer's identity was anything other than who it was, was really stupid, and the conversation between Thorin and the elf king is left at guesswork

Finally, the worldbuilding in Laketown was negligent, at best


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 21, 2013)

Also, if they want me to enjoy things like the dwarven barrel juggling and giant gold statues, the movie really needs to stop taking itself so goddamned depressingly serious

I actually like Dwarves singing in the first movie

The ending line of the movie is actually quite ironic
The hobbit turns to us and says "What have we done"

Bloody good question Bilbo


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 21, 2013)

probably radagast will make that last point happen


----------



## martryn (Dec 21, 2013)

> probably radagast will make that last point happen



I'd be ok with that, as long as it happens.  I don't mind Radagast's much larger role in the films.  I don't much care for how fucking retarded he seems, but, meh.


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

I don't know what's worse..that Banhammer double-posted (which I'm glad I can't see) like he has crabs or that he's in this thread at all. 

I either case it doesn't change the fact "The hobbit" sports boss reviews and top of the box office  

EDIT:

I saw Colbert's cameo in Desolation of Smaug pek pek


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 21, 2013)

I can forgive his derpiness on account of how well he plays off gandalf


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

Ignore listing is good 


Matryn-bro what you rates Desolation of Smaug 1 out of 10?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 21, 2013)

Salty 2: The Desolation of Bender


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 21, 2013)

This just occured to me, but why were the orcs even able to chase the dwarfs in the barrel scene when there was daylight? Anyone thought of that? (Of course this plot hole if you want to call it that, happened also in the previous movie.)

I agree with Banhammer that these movies had lame soundtracks, nothing memorable, I can hardly even remember the new soundtracks and unfortunately Howard Shore seems to just recycle old soundtrack from LotR. In some scenes I can understand that, like playing the same music when Bilbo shared Gollum's life in previous movie, and in Fellowship of the Ring in Moria when Gandalf talked about Gollum.

I am also wondering if there are any more iconic scenes from the book for the 3rd film? We already had riddles in the dark and conversation between Bilbo and Smaug which were easily the best scenes of both movies so I'm just trying to remember was there any other scenes from the book to look forward to. I guess not since I can't remember any.  Also, by the way those scenes looked, I think you can tell that PJ put most love in making those particular scenes.



Harbour said:


> -Id say that each fight scene from this movie sucks in compare with simple this:
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



I agree with this. Some of the fights started to remind me of Star Wars prequels, so over the top that it's not exciting anymore. I will rather watch that Boromir fight than all the Legolas & Tauriel vs. Orcs fight scenes.


----------



## Bender (Dec 21, 2013)

@Sauron

Can't deny that movie 2 and 3 of LOTR had the most dope ending credits song. Pippin's song in particular, gives me goosebumps each time I hear it. 

On the CGI:

Eh, not to be fanboyish but the CGI is doing its job. Plus, IIRC one of the many awards of LOTR films was for its CGI.

Star Wars made terrible use of its CGI if most fights had terrible conclusions.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 21, 2013)

Sauron said:


> *I am also wondering if there are any more iconic scenes from the book for the 3rd film?* We already had riddles in the dark and conversation between Bilbo and Smaug which were easily the best scenes of both movies so I'm just trying to remember was there any other scenes from the book to look forward to. I guess not since I can't remember any.  Also, by the way those scenes looked, I think you can tell that PJ put most love in making those particular scenes.



lol....I think you're forgetting the Battle of five armies.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 21, 2013)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol....I think you're forgetting the Battle of five armies.



Sure, but I wouldn't say that was much of an iconic scene though.


----------



## Suigetsu (Dec 22, 2013)

Sauron said:


> Sure, but I wouldn't say that was much of an iconic scene though.



The battle of the five armies its not even that icon, yet they are dedicating an entire 3 hour movie to it.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 22, 2013)

As I remember, it happens offscreen.

Hopefully it'll play laketown a lot more as payoff for the half an hour wasted in the second movie over it and it's political unrest


----------



## Bender (Dec 23, 2013)

@Suigetsu

I'm sure there's more material than just the battle of five armies. If anything they'll make the "Battle of Five Armies" into a 20 min thing.


----------



## Bender (Dec 23, 2013)

Sooooooooooooooo saw it again on Friday. 

It was awesomes! 

Saw Stephen Colbert cameo. pek pek pek

lol @ him being a eyepatched dude.


----------



## James Bond (Dec 23, 2013)

I hope Gandalf is going to be okay


----------



## Donquixote Doflamingo (Dec 23, 2013)

How old is Gandolf anyway like 200+?


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 23, 2013)

the hobbit is roughly 50 years or 80 before LOTR


----------



## Parallax (Dec 24, 2013)

Gandalf is over 2,000 thousand years old iirc 

although technically if he was sent to help with the creation of Arda by Varda he's several tens of thousands of years old


----------



## gershwin (Dec 25, 2013)

[YOUTUBE]lcMkf2iq1Ac[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 25, 2013)

Donquixote Doflamingo said:


> How old is Gandolf anyway like 200+?



He has existed since the dawn of Time. So have Sauron, Saruman, Radagast and the Balrog.


----------



## TasteTheDifference (Dec 26, 2013)

Parallax said:


> This was mediocre
> 
> I'm mad as fuck I paid $16 for this :|



Smaug is worth seeing it for, cumberbatch and the cgi team did a great job, the rest of the film is mixed tho


----------



## Gin (Dec 26, 2013)

Movie wasn't bad.

The barrel scene was superb however.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 26, 2013)

You know, when someone mentioned that Smaug says "I am strong, strong, strong", my first thought was "That sounds real silly".

But then I listened to this. The appeal is in the way it's said.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Or8G_jDcLNo[/YOUTUBE]

(Not really digging that half-mammal/ half-reptile look, but the VA is great.)

Back to the movie, I still don't care that his speech was fractured, as the lines still were said beautifully by Benedict Cumberbatch.


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Dec 27, 2013)

I saw the second film over the past weekend, and I definitely enjoyed it. It was long, but I was expecting that, so that was not a problem for me.

This movie was certainly one of the most visually-impressive movies that I have ever seen; from the vast expanse of the Lonely Mountain, to the dark forest of Mirkwood, to the ruined castle of Dol Guldur, the filmmakers have done an excellent job of capturing the depth and majesty of Tolkien's world.

The fight scenes were also excellently-choreographed, in my mind, especially the scene where the dwarves and elves were fighting the orcs while traveling down the river; that was a very exciting fight scene.

I initially was wary of the inclusion of Legolas in this film, since Tolkien had not yet conceived his character when he wrote _The Hobbit,_ but I am glad to see that his role was minor. I did also like the character of Tauriel, who was created specifically for this film, but she did feel very similar to Arwen from _The Lord of the Rings_ trilogy (which is actually set after this film), although Kili?s flirtation with her was amusing. What shall happn to Tauriel by the end of this trilogy? My guess is that she shall die, likely in the Battle of the Five Armies, since she is absent from _The Lord of the Rings;_ obviously, from an out-of-universe perspective, her character did not yet exist when those films were made, but an in-universe explanation shall still be needed to explain her absence, and her dying makes the most sense to me.

When Bilbo entered the treasure room in the Lonely Mountain, and when Smaug appeared, rising slowly from the treasure, I found myself trembling with excitement at that scene; it reminded me of such iconic scenes in cinema history as when Maleficent transformed into a dragon in Disney's _Sleeping Beauty_ or when the dragon appeared in _The Pagemaster._ He was by far one of the most excellently-portrayed dragons that I have ever seen in film, and Benedict Cumberbatch was absolutely epic as his voice actor! I thoroughly enjoyed every moment of his screen time, and I do hope that he is recognized for his performance in this film.

I was very displeased when the film ended abruptly, just as Smaug was leaving the mountain to attack Laketown, but at least that ending shall build suspense and anticipation for the next film. I do hope that Smaug has sufficient screentime in the final film, since he dies during his attack on the town, and it would be underwhelming and shameful for his presence in the final film to be only minimal.

Was the party's visit with Beorn so short in the original book? I recall it being longer, but it has been years since I last read the book, so my recollection may not be completely accurate.

Overall, I definitely enjoyed this film, was impressed with its visual artistry, and am now eagerly anticipating the final installment of this trilogy!


----------



## Table (Dec 27, 2013)

Suigetsu said:


> The battle of the five armies its not even that icon, yet they are dedicating an entire 3 hour movie to it.



Yes and I can't wait... if only for the elveness of it all 



Parallax said:


> Gandalf is over 2,000 thousand years old iirc
> 
> although technically if he was sent to help with the creation of Arda by Varda he's several tens of thousands of years old



Yes, there's the age of his "spirit" or whatever, and then how long he's had physical form, right?  Not sure if I remember correctly... and yeah I think it was just over 2k years.



gershwin said:


> [YOUTUBE]lcMkf2iq1Ac[/YOUTUBE]



This is fun and your set is AMAZING.



Luiz said:


> You know, when someone mentioned that Smaug says "I am strong, strong, strong", my first thought was "That sounds real silly".
> 
> But then I listened to this. The appeal is in the way it's said.
> 
> ...



I'm oddly fascinated by how much cartoon Smaug looks like my cat.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 27, 2013)

Someone already leaked the whole movie on youtube in a good quality 

already gone


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Dec 28, 2013)

I think this is the first movie in a long time where I can say there's such things as there's too much of a good thing. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie overall but this movie felt incredibly filler-ish/too much padding. 

My issues with the filler was in the Smaug action sequence which while nice to watch felt like it was dragging a bit too long especially seeing the way the film ended... I don't see why they couldn't have shown Smaug's death in this film. Same with Legolas (being incredibly Overpowered owning Orcs everywhere) Action sequences running a little too long throughout the river and in Laketown. Gandalf running into Dol Guldur even though he knew it was a trap was like Peter Jackson telling us 'I know this scene isn't even necessary but I'm gonna do it anyway coz I need to pad out the movie more.'

Just to be clear, I'm referring more towards the action sequences being draggy. I was actually okay with fleshing out Laketown and Bard more since they were barely featured in the books and it was a nice break after that intense action sequence earlier. I was also fine with the dragged out dialogue sequence between Bilbo and Smaug.

Overall I really liked the movie but seriously, he could really have trimmed out 20 - 30 minutes of the film.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Dec 29, 2013)

the cliffhangers were a little underwhelming after a while.  after 2x, i knew every character would be saved by a last second arrow thru the enemies head.  it wasn't suspenseful at all anymore


----------



## Sands (Dec 29, 2013)

I enjoyed this more than the first one. Dunno, it felt more complete and there was more to it than the first. Plus Smaug was well above my expectations.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 29, 2013)

NarutoSimpsonUltimate said:


> the cliffhangers were a little underwhelming after a while.  after 2x, i knew every character would be saved by a last second arrow thru the enemies head.  it wasn't suspenseful at all anymore



Dwarfs are practically invincible, they can fight Orcs in barrels, be close to molten metal, fight a Dragon that burnt down an entire kingdom just because he could for their gold with only Thorin's coat being burnt and consistently not get any major injury from all encounters before.

Does'nt touch Legolas's ninja murdering skills as he hops from barrel to barrel taking down 2 Orcs at once with a single arrow but nothing touches the sheer ridiculousness of Legolas.

Enjoyable movie still in it's own right.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 29, 2013)

Ninja daywalking orcs ftw


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 29, 2013)

I never knew that orcs had a problem with sunlight.


----------



## Federer (Dec 29, 2013)

I knew trolls did. 

I only thought that orcs didn't like sunlight.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 29, 2013)

Banhammer said:


> *Ninja* daywalking orcs ftw



Oh definately. It took the Dwarfs having to hide in a boat all the way across the water but those Orcs somehow appeared in the city moving from roof tops with no alarm.

Let's not forget Azog somehow going back to Dol Guldur in almost no time despite there being days worth of journey to follow the Dwarfs through the first movie.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 30, 2013)

body flicker no jutsu, duh


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 30, 2013)

The dwarves had cheat codes on.

Legolas is in developer mode. I'm pretty sure he'd make short work of Sauron. He's just an eye after all and Legolas is some sort of Elf Terminator Neo.


----------



## Pseudo (Dec 30, 2013)

The Tolkien film franchise forever stained in just two years.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 30, 2013)

You know, Bilbo isn't exactly a warrior but he still can take care of himself through other means unlike his dead weight grandson.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 30, 2013)

Frodo is his nephew, Luiz  And he is ten times better in books than that dying swan Elijah Wood portrayed. Ugh movie Frodo



Delta Shell said:


> The dwarves had cheat codes on.
> 
> Legolas is in developer mode. I'm pretty sure he'd make short work of Sauron. He's just an eye after all and Legolas is some sort of Elf Terminator Neo.



 I was watching Two Towers yesterday and couldn`t get rid of thought why in Helm's Deep did they even need the elven army if they had LEGOLAS who judging by Hobbit standarts could do all the work himself


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 30, 2013)

Oh, my bad. 

Bilbo can take care of himself unlike his dead weight nephew. 

Anyway, it's good to know that Frodo isn't April O'Neil with big feet in the book at least.


----------



## Banhammer (Dec 30, 2013)

just hand legolas ten k arrows


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 30, 2013)

Bilbo is'nt a fighter and he can't take care of himself in a fight, he's just a hermit whose put into the world filled with danger. He added the human perspective and unlikely hero angle, the movie shows him killing without hesitation which should'nt come easy to him. The scene with The Ring is the exception as it's under influence and a blatant WHAT HAVE I DONE? moment. 

Frodo being a Hobbit is'nt capable of fighting physically. Understand that Frodo had to deal with
-Going closer into enemy land
-Prolonged exposure to The Ring
-Orcs who are armored and trained to kill in multiples
-No band of Dwarfs from a Super Mario game
-Finding food especially closer to Sauron's base
-Navigating dangerous terrain and sneaking in
-Ring growing stronger the closer they got to Sauron
-Thieves who would capture them
-Nazgul's hunting him for what he carries
-Sauron no longer trying to conceal his presence as much

Bilbo had some of that too but he also had a band of dwarfs while Frodo had only his best friend aka another Hobbit and later Gollum(whose unstable). Frodo's ability to have resisted The Ring for so long(the same ring that could corrupt gods and Elder Elves if it wanted) before falling to it while going for days and at times without much sleep is the impressive part. This is the Hobbit that got Aragorn and co to bow in respect to him. The Hobbits are generally the ones who are physically useless in a fight but the point is to show how someone can make a difference no matter how small or frail. They are not cold blooded killers like Thorin or Aragorn who can just kill with no emotion or show no remorse. 

So who wants to take wager on how much influence Legolas will have in the killing of Smaug?

1. He shoots the arrow without help after Bard fails to show how much better he is

2. Bard does it completely after a little birdie or Bilbo says it

3. Same as above but Legolas uses super vision to find the weak area

4. Legolas assists Bard and by assist I mean he shoots his arrow to intercept Bard's mid air so the arrow does not miss while Legolas's arrow also gives it extra force to go through the weak area.


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 31, 2013)

gershwin said:


> Frodo is his nephew, Luiz  And he is ten times better in books than that dying swan Elijah Wood portrayed. Ugh movie Frodo
> 
> 
> 
> I was watching Two Towers yesterday and couldn`t get rid of thought why in Helm's Deep did they even need the elven army if they had LEGOLAS who judging by Hobbit standarts could do all the work himself




Hahah I know right, Orc wrecking machine, eagle should have just dropped that mother fucker in Mordor and let him have good times. Autokill mode.

Also yes, the movies make Bilbo 100 times more badass than his wet blanket annoying nephew.

I also like the actor a lot more. His conversation with Smaug was brilliant and with Gollum in the first one.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 31, 2013)

I would say what also makes Frodo and Bilbo different is their motivation. Bilbo  made a choice to go to the journey with excitement and whatever he says you just know somewhere in heart he probably enjoys everything that happens and himself being challenged. Excitement gives strength. Frodo doesn`t _want_ - he _must_ and he bears a great burden. No wonder sometimes he is shown to be weaker. Who knows what would happen to Bilbo in similair circumstances.


Tranquil Fury said:


> So who wants to take wager on how much influence Legolas will have in the killing of Smaug?



He catches and holds Smaug so Bard won`t miss


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 31, 2013)

Went to a 10 hour hobbit marathon on the weekend at the cinema. It was great. Started 1pm so I didn't get tired or fall asleep like.

I appreciate the films much more after seeing them now, rather than when I was younger. Definitely one of my favourite film series.

I didn't really think they dragged on or were slow or whatever. I just enjoyed it all. Well, the 2nd film didn't seem as enjoyable as the 1st and 3rd, but still good overall. I didn't seem like 10 hours of walking or running at all.

I vastly overestimated Orlando Bloom though. He was my fave before but noticed he doesn't do much except have some cool fight scenes in the 2nd and 3rd films mostly. I criminally underestimated Aragorn. He is by far my favourite character. Viggo Mortensen was great in the role.

Anyway my main point was to compare the tone to the Hobbit. Lotr shifts it's tone a lot depending who is the focus on a scene/storyline. Hobbit films don't other characters besides the lighter ones, so the films overall are a bit lighter. But not by much to me.

Forgot how Frodo kinda failed at the end, but I suppose he still had the courage do the journey in the first place so he gets points for that. The ending of the 3rd film dragged on for ages.

I'm guessing the 3rd Hobbit will end with Bilbo saying something similar to his final line in the 3rd lotr film. Something about an adventure. I don't remember exactly.

Love the universe. Hope they do adapt The Silmarillion to be honest.


----------



## Kuromaku (Dec 31, 2013)

The comments in this thread make Legolas' shock at bleeding (bleeding!) all the more hilarious


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 31, 2013)

gershwin said:


> He catches and holds Smaug so Bard won`t miss



He does this after he shoots an arrow at Smaug and rides on the arrow towards him like Tao Pei Pei and shit. Puts Smaug in a chokehold and lights a cigar using his breath.

He then has a smoking contest with Bilbo and Gandalf. Bilbo blows a ring, Gandalf blows out a boat Legolas blows out a fully operational Death Star and blows up Alderan. Obi Wan Kenobi shits himself.



Kuromaku said:


> The comments in this thread make Legolas' shock at bleeding (bleeding!) all the more hilarious



His nose was ejaculating because he's a bishi anime character and killing Orcs make him hard.

End of Legolas wank.


----------



## Banhammer (Jan 1, 2014)

Ten thousand ninja Hobbit Orcs at Helm's Deep vs Mirkwood Legolas 

OBD I SUMMON YOU


----------



## The Big G (Jan 1, 2014)




----------



## Tony Lou (Jan 3, 2014)

YOUR ASS OR YOUR PUSSY?




Nah, original Godzilla is slow as hell with those short limbs and round body.


----------



## Zen-aku (Jan 4, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Dwarfs are practically invincible, they can fight Orcs in barrels, be close to molten metal, fight a Dragon that burnt down an entire kingdom just because he could for their gold with only Thorin's coat being burnt and consistently not get any major injury from all encounters before.
> 
> Does'nt touch Legolas's ninja murdering skills as he hops from barrel to barrel taking down 2 Orcs at once with a single arrow but nothing touches the sheer ridiculousness of Legolas.
> 
> Enjoyable movie still in it's own right.



Never had play D&D have we?

All that can be explained via Racial Bonuses .


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 15, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]nJOSAwNzyi4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Jan 17, 2014)

HISHE 

But their take on LotR is still the best.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jan 17, 2014)

I haven't liked those Hishe videos for quite some time. The jokes feel so forced.


----------



## soulnova (Jan 17, 2014)

Zen-aku said:


> Never had play D&D have we?
> 
> All that can be explained via Racial Bonuses .



Indeed.

 D&D and Pathfinder have spoiled me, I guess. I see Legolas as simply "good", but he pales in comparison of what we pull during a play session. 

I have a player who had such a high AC we ruled that when the wind blew, his hair wouldn't even move... He was nigh untouchable.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 17, 2014)

Are they really going to stick to 3 films?  Or will the studio change the title to There and Back Again Part 1?  The suspense is killing me.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 17, 2014)

I found this a couple of weeks ago. Not sure if its official.


----------



## soulnova (Jan 18, 2014)

Rukia said:


> Are they really going to stick to 3 films?  Or will the studio change the title to There and Back Again Part 1?  The suspense is killing me.



They are going to stick to 3 films. 


BTW, They are doing more "pickups" shots in May.  Seems they need some other details cleared.


----------



## Rukia (Jan 18, 2014)

Hobbit 3 has a chance to be the biggest surprise of the year.  No one expects this movie to be any good after the first two!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 18, 2014)

History could repeat itself like it was 10 years ago when the final LotR movie won an Oscar for Best Picture.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jan 19, 2014)

^ Yeah, not gonna happen.


----------



## Nightblade (Jan 19, 2014)

it will win best love triangle, best romance and best on screen kiss in the MTV Movie Awards.


----------



## BlueSasuke (Jan 20, 2014)

It does differ some parts from the book, but so does Lord of the rings movies. 
For what it is, its ok. I mean not as good as the Lord of the rings movies were, but its a charming fun movie for what it is 
I recommend seeing it.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 23, 2014)

Supposedly this is the first poster for There And Back Again, but it could very well be fake since it hasn't been that much of a time since DOS came out.

But lets have a look anyway:


*Spoiler*: __


----------



## dream (Jan 23, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> Supposedly this is the first poster for There And Back Again, but it could very well be fake since it hasn't been that much of a time since DOS came out.
> 
> But lets have a look anyway:
> 
> ...



It's a fan-made poster.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jan 23, 2014)

I see, my bad.


----------



## Table (Jan 23, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> [YOUTUBE]nJOSAwNzyi4[/YOUTUBE]



Love this... And I definitely agree the romance was so forced and really unbelievable and overall detracts from the multiple other plots flying around the film.  


I hate reaction vids, but I still think this is the best moment of all time:

[YOUTUBE]qQ1LCvs8Xcc[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Scila9 (Jan 23, 2014)

Table said:


> I hate reaction vids, but I still think this is the best moment of all time:
> 
> [YOUTUBE]qQ1LCvs8Xcc[/YOUTUBE]



Celeb's reaction to a reaction vid? lol I like it

GO LEGO!!!


----------



## Table (Jan 23, 2014)

Lee Pace's fangirl armwaving freak out gets me every time.....and Orlando's little dragon chomp thing and Evangeline's general flawlessness. Ahhh I love all three of them so much


----------



## gershwin (Jan 24, 2014)

Awesome poster for China


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 24, 2014)

Gorgeous poster.


----------



## Wesley (Jan 24, 2014)

I really liked what they did with Smaug.


----------



## Table (Jan 24, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Gorgeous poster.



I first thought you were posting your sig as a poster and


----------



## Hunted by sister (Apr 4, 2014)

Watched Desolation. They made Smaug a fucking wyvern, not a dragon.... even if he was awesome.

Extremely boring movie, too

//HbS


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 9, 2014)

*The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug* 

Really like the cast (as with the first), the action was once again good and the scenery and sets are awesome to look at at. It was also really cool watching Smaug rampage but if I am being honest the payoff wasn't worth the nearly 3 hour run time and the movie seemed to drag at times and I found myself bored during certain moments. This one reminded me more of the LotR movies or at least how I felt watching those. Some enjoyable moments but not really good enough to carry the length or make it worth re-watching. The first Hobbit movie remains the best of any of these. Still haven't seen the last LotR movie though.  

3/5


----------



## Naya (Apr 9, 2014)

When I saw what they've made of Beorn, I felt pain and sufferings.
Such a huge NO.
Again, to the first and to the second movies.
The way they keep changing plot to make it more commercial and Hollywood like is just awful.


----------



## The World (Apr 9, 2014)

I really like these movies

fuck all you haters


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 9, 2014)

First one was good World. 2nd one just had a lot of boring parts.


----------



## Nuuskis (Apr 9, 2014)

Nanatsurugi said:


> When I saw what they've made of Beorn, I felt pain and sufferings.
> Such a huge NO.
> Again, to the first and to the second movies.
> The way they keep changing plot to make it more commercial and Hollywood like is just awful.



Yeah, Beorn's introduction in the book was fun and would had been funny scene in the movie, but for some reason PJ thought Bear chasing the dwarfs would be cooler. Also the whole Mirkwood and spider scenes should had been more like in the book. After the point where elves capture them, there wasn't any differences to the book that bothered me.

I hope in the extended edition, those scenes I mentioned would be like in the book, but somehow I doubt that.

As for now, I also liked first one the most as theatrical version, didn't care about the added scenes in the extended version which is weird because I totally prefer extended lotr over theatricals.


----------



## Naya (Apr 9, 2014)

I am not even sure that I've seen extended versions. :scratch
Are them much different?


Oh the elves.
Oh the elven lover.
I may look cool as a part of a movie, without linking it to the world of Tolkien.


----------



## Tony Lou (Apr 12, 2014)

Hunted by sister said:


> Watched Desolation. They made Smaug a fucking wyvern, not a dragon....



Ah, number of limbs. 


Going by that logic this also isn't a dragon.


----------



## Nuuskis (Apr 12, 2014)

If it breathes fire, it's a dragon in my books.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Apr 12, 2014)

Luiz said:


> Ah, number of limbs.
> 
> 
> Going by that logic this also isn't a dragon.



To Asian folklore it is atleast. What a dragon is will vary from fiction both in capabilities and appearance so complaining about design(especially a good design for Smaug) is pointless.


----------



## Zen-aku (Apr 12, 2014)

Dragons with 4 Legs rarely look bad ass any way.


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 14, 2014)

Nana Tsu said:


> When I saw what they've made of Beorn, I felt pain and sufferings.
> Such a huge NO.
> Again, to the first and to the second movies.
> The way they keep changing plot to make it more commercial and Hollywood like is just awful.



This, this... just this.

I wouldnt had minded Tauriel if they hadnt shoved in the love triangle. Also the orcs getting inside the forest and getting those Wood Elf guards was ridiculous. Even more when they where outsmarted by kids in the town.

They took a lot of really beautiful things from the book just to push some wierd strange gimmick.

Also Smaug was pretty stupid. He can smell everything yet he passes the dwarves and doesnt smell them.
Also unforgivable, his coat of jewels was left from the movie... I felt a grinding anger inside me. And if the excuse is "you cant make a carbon copy, or its business" then what a pathetic shit answer to excuse your laziness.

>__>


----------



## Naya (Apr 14, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> This, this... just this.
> 
> I wouldnt had minded Tauriel if they hadnt shoved in the love triangle. Also the orcs getting inside the forest and getting those Wood Elf guards was ridiculous. Even more when they where outsmarted by kids in the town.
> 
> ...




Quoted for truth.

If they couldn't make it seriously according to the book - just call it "inspired by Tolkien", don't go all over yelling "it's Tolkien!". 

Books are often changed when turned into movies, but sometimes it's just too much.


----------



## Cyphon (Apr 14, 2014)

I haven't read the books but I agree with you guys. I don't think you should essentially invent characters or have them doing things OOC or that would never happen. I am more for something like….Let's say the book tells us character x > character y in battle but we never read about a fight between them. If they were to a show a fight in the movie with character x beating y that would be fine by me assuming a fight was possible in the books or did happen but we were never given any details.


----------



## Nuuskis (Apr 14, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> This, this... just this.
> 
> I wouldnt had minded Tauriel if they hadnt shoved in the love triangle. Also the orcs getting inside the forest and getting those Wood Elf guards was ridiculous. Even more when they where outsmarted by kids in the town.
> 
> ...



Completely agree aswell, especially the bolded part annoyed me.

It's clear to me that they didn't have as much love for the source material as when they did Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Naya (Apr 14, 2014)

btw I also wanted to see how they would show it, but... but. They decided not to lol


----------



## Suigetsu (Apr 15, 2014)

Nana Tsu said:


> I am not even sure that I've seen extended versions. :scratch
> Are them much different?
> 
> 
> ...



I liked the extended fellowship of the ring. Didnt really liked the TT one nor the ROTK one IMO.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Apr 24, 2014)

> *THE HOBBIT: THERE AND BACK AGAIN Officially Retitled: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES*
> 
> _"Our journey to make The Hobbit Trilogy has been in some ways like Bilbo's own, with hidden paths revealing their secrets to us as we've gone along. ?There and Back Again? felt like the right name for the second of a two film telling of the quest to reclaim Erebor, when Bilbo?s arrival there, and departure, were both contained within the second film. But with three movies, it suddenly felt misplaced?after all, Bilbo has already arrived ?there? in the "Desolation of Smaug".
> 
> ...


----------



## random user (Apr 24, 2014)

It was clear as day that the entire third movie gonna be about 5 armies battle, and trying to outdo Return of The King as much as possible.

Obvious irony for those who haven't read the book is that the entire war was skipped in narration as Bilbo lost consciousness. But Peej is here to compensate for that hack Tolkien.

Sigh.


----------



## Naya (Apr 24, 2014)

I am terrified seeing how they are going to show Thorin's madness.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 24, 2014)

Nana Tsu said:


> I am terrified seeing how they are going to show Thorin's madness.



They kinda already did. The not-so-subtle hints of his obsession were beginning to show as soon as they got to Erebor. Which is kinda sad 'cause I like Thorin.


----------



## martryn (Apr 24, 2014)

> It's clear to me that they didn't have as much love for the source material as when they did Lord of the Rings.



Disagree.  They butchered Two Towers.  So many important plot elements changed that it was insulting.  Entire characters were changed.  Nothing they've done in the Hobbit films upset me this much, with the possible exception of Beorn and his ridiculous imprisonment backstory.


----------



## Naya (Apr 24, 2014)

I mean that I feel like they are going to spoil the character further. Cause I didn't really like how he acted in the scenes, that were invented by them (not from the book originally).


----------



## martryn (Apr 24, 2014)

Thorin's greed was very evident throughout the book.  Bilbo, after he stole that gem thing, was afraid Thorin would kill him if he found out, which is why he kept going behind Thorin's back to try and make amends with Dale and the elves.  It was only the arrival of the goblin army that convinced everyone to call a truce.  Thorin's madness has some basis in the book.

In the Two Towers, though, we had:
1.  Faramir's character becoming just as weak as Boromir when he attempted to drag Frodo and Sam back to Gondor.
2.  The ents deciding against war and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippen into witnessing Saruman's destruction of the forest firsthand. 
3.  The death of Haldir, who shouldn't even have been at Helm's Deep.


----------



## random user (Apr 24, 2014)

martryn said:


> They butchered Two Towers.  So many important plot elements changed that it was insulting.


Eh, not really. It's called adaptation, you adapt the story for roughly 2 hours of screen time. Nothing that was changed alters the idea and the end result.

Adding pointless stuff, like taking Frodo to Osgiliath, that can count for something, but even then it was just another forced Peej conflict. The entire trilogy is bursting with them, it's the price of having movie version at all. You either learn to deal with them or stick solely to books as your hobby.


----------



## Velocity (Apr 24, 2014)

martryn said:


> of Beorn and his ridiculous imprisonment backstory.



That was a bit silly... "They enslaved our people and used us for sport, implying we were no match for them, yet an entire hunting company led by the very Orc that enslaved us won't come near you as long as I'm here". If they could capture him and chain him up and stuff, there's no reason why they'd not dare attack just because he's standing guard.


----------



## Nuuskis (Apr 24, 2014)

*sigh* "There and back again" was a perfect title for the final film.





martryn said:


> In the Two Towers, though, we had:
> 1. Faramir's character becoming just as weak as Boromir when he attempted to drag Frodo and Sam back to Gondor.
> 2. The ents deciding against war and having to be tricked by Merry and Pippen into witnessing Saruman's destruction of the forest firsthand.
> 3. The death of Haldir, who shouldn't even have been at Helm's Deep.



The reason for that change was that if Faramir would have rejected the Ring from the start, filmmakers thought it would have stripped the Ring from all of it's corruptive power. I personally don't mind this change because Faramir does overcome that weakness in the end.

And they felt that if Ents would have gone to war immediatly, that would have left Merry & Pippin as nothing but bystanders, so that way, these two characters had a real purpose in the movie. Also one change I agree with.

As for Haldir dying, I agree with you. Elves shouldn't have come there at all, men of Rohan should have managed to defeat the Uruk-Hai army by themselves. But at least they decided to remove Arwen from that battle, as the original idea was to include her there.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (May 1, 2014)




----------



## DemonDragonJ (May 1, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: __



Yes, I, also, am bothered by this name change, since _The Hobbit: There and Back Again_ was a perfectly suitable title, while this new title makes less sense, since the Battle of the Five Armies is not the central event of the book; it certainly is the climax of the book, but that does not automatically make it the most important event of the story. However, hopefully this means that the films shall show the battle in greater detail than did the book, since the book only briefly mentioned it, and I am very fond of massive battle scenes in films.


----------



## Suigetsu (May 3, 2014)

martryn said:


> yone to call a truce.  Thorin's madness has some basis in the book.
> 
> In the Two Towers, though, we had:
> 1.  Faramir's character becoming just as weak as Boromir when he attempted to drag Frodo and Sam back to Gondor.
> ...



Faramir was ok. Yeah he was more badass in the book but that's forgivable.

The ents thing well, I guess it was done to add some drama and at the end it was just going on circles but it wasnt that bad.

But the last one... Yes PJ admitted it as a mistake, they "realized that the elves shouldnt be there but the dunedain instead when it was too late" I dont know if I should believe this or not cause they even shot scenes with Arwen fighting at helms deep.
Supposedly they simplified it with elves in order to sell the project to New Line Cinema but I dont know, I just dont trust film makers when it could affect them selling the product.

Unlike Tarantino that doesnt give a fck and says outright when he thinks one of his movies was bad or could had been better and tells you where. Now that's a mans man.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jul 3, 2014)




----------



## Tony Lou (Jul 7, 2014)




----------



## crazymtf (Jul 7, 2014)

I saw the second movie. What a fucking boring ass movie. I hated it. Ugh. Maybe Hobbit series isn't for me. First one was like a 6 this one was a 4.


----------



## Table (Jul 9, 2014)

I love this so so much


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 23, 2014)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jul 23, 2014)

Awesome poster. 

Here are is one still. I saw another one showing Gandalf and Bard, I'll try to find it.


----------



## Amanda (Jul 23, 2014)

Great poster and a nice still! Now give us the trailer!


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 23, 2014)

PJ please keep your Legolas fanboyism in check just this once.


----------



## Amanda (Jul 23, 2014)

I'm more worried about his CGI fanboyism, tbh.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jul 24, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Jul 24, 2014)

I approve of the amount of Thranduil in the marketing.


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 27, 2014)

Trailer tomorrow.

[YOUTUBE]uwXqME3gFpA[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Jul 27, 2014)

Cate Blanchett said we'll see Galadriel in Dol Guldur, and that she'll have a confrontation of some kind with Sauron. Which is great. I've waited her to kick some ass for over a decade now, along with many other fans. 

(I assume we don't need to spoiler tag book canon spoilers?)


----------



## gershwin (Jul 27, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Trailer tomorrow.
> 
> [YOUTUBE]uwXqME3gFpA[/YOUTUBE]



Teaser to teaser?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 27, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Cate Blanchett said we'll see Galadriel in Dol Guldur, and that she'll have a confrontation of some kind with Sauron. Which is great. I've waited her to kick some ass for over a decade now, along with many other fans.
> 
> (I assume we don't need to spoiler tag book canon spoilers?)



Movies are radically different to the books even in characterisation and adding new characters but for safety better.


*Spoiler*: __ 



 Galadriel confronting Sauron is within Tolkien saying that her presence would require Sauron himself to step in but hopefully he wins after a fight


----------



## Amanda (Jul 28, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> Galadriel confronting Sauron is within Tolkien saying that her presence would require Sauron himself to step in but hopefully he wins after a fight





*Spoiler*: __ 





Sauron should win, as none of them have the Ring. Though Galadriel has Nenya,if that is of any contribution.

However, if the movies are anything like the books, then we know that the Dol Guldur storyline will end in Sauron abandoning Dol Guldur and the White Council thinking they got a victory. So I'm curious about how they will bring that out: that they think they won, but that in reality Sauron just tricked them.


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 28, 2014)

Teaser Trailer

[YOUTUBE]ZSzeFFsKEt4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pilaf (Jul 28, 2014)

I get the feeling manly tears will be shed.


----------



## Amanda (Jul 28, 2014)

Some quick thoughts  

- The tone/mood is nice and on spot. They're already milking on 
*Spoiler*: __ 



the death scenes, too.




- Emphasis on the Dwarves vs Men & Elves conflict, only a few quick shots about the Dol Guldur plot and Smaug.

- What's with Galadriel kissing Gandal's forehead? Is he seriously injured?

- What's the cart chase on the frozen river? Is that Balin?

Edit 1:

Ooh, a new poster:

[sp]

[/sp]


Edit 2:

Additional thoughts:

- Damn they're really trying to sell this on the wing of LotR. While perfectly understandable, I kinda wished LotR was left out of this mess. 

- Do I spot our first LotR reference, so abundant in DOS? We have a shot of Galadriel's bare feet as she's walking to the right, and later she kisses someone's forehead:


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jul 28, 2014)

Nice trailer.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jul 29, 2014)

Amanda said:


> *Spoiler*: __
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*Spoiler*: __ 



In the books, it wasn't just Galadriel facing Sauron but the whole White Council. Either way, I suspect the fight will end in a draw and Sauron is forced to flee from Dol Guldur. I just hope that confrontation won't look visually as boring as Gandalf vs. Sauron in the previous film, that crap looked like something from Harry Potter movies.




Too much CGI for my taste now that I have seen the teaser trailer. And I'm still not over how they changed the title from "There and Back Again" to "Battle of the Five Armies".

Truth be told, I have higher hopes for Middle Earth: Shadow of Mordor video game than for the final Hobbit movie.


----------



## Amanda (Jul 29, 2014)

I don't really expect it to be _good_, but there are some things and stuff I'm curious to see.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 29, 2014)

> What's with Galadriel kissing Gandal's forehead? Is he seriously injured?



Shipping. I suspect Jacksonverse Gandalf and Galadriel may have a thing/feelings. Gandalf's actor has also said something as such IIRC around the time of The Hobbit I with regards to a scene with Gandalf/Galadriel post White Council meeting(can't seem to find the quote now so take it with a grain of salt).


----------



## Amanda (Jul 29, 2014)

Uhhhh.... I'd be okayish with that if Galadriel wasn't married. Them having an affair behind Celeborn's back? Galadriel cheating? That'd be incredibly disrespectful to Tolkien. 

I rather just think of them as very, very, very old comrades.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jul 30, 2014)

No affair implication is there, they may have feelings for each other and don't act on it for the reason you mentioned. Could just be harmless shipping tease and not an actual thing even. I personally think it's platonic and they are close friends.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Jul 31, 2014)

*Spoiler*: _Another still_


----------



## tari101190 (Jul 31, 2014)

This my most anticipated film of the year.

Apes, X-Men, Captain America, Guardians are all great so far. Hopefully this is even better.


----------



## Amanda (Aug 1, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _Another still_




Nice. Fili's costume looks like a visual reference to Boromir's.


----------



## Suigetsu (Aug 5, 2014)

They dont look very dwarvish to me...

callin it now, fili and elven broad will die at the battle with a .. I luv u.... and die.

Legolas will be like "I hate u dwarves and be a setup for lotr" cause this is a lotr prequel more than the hobbit movie.


----------



## Monster (Aug 9, 2014)

Not really looking forward to this one. Feel like it's going to be a letdown. I didn't really hate the first 2 movies I just felt they were average.


----------



## Amanda (Aug 10, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> They dont look very dwarvish to me...




Isn't this what people have been saying since the first promo pics came out? 



Suigetsu said:


> callin it now, fili and elven broad will die at the battle with a .. I luv u.... and die.
> 
> Legolas will be like "I hate u dwarves and be a setup for lotr" cause this is a lotr prequel more than the hobbit movie.




I'd hope it's rather a set up for Legolas learning to like them, but...  considering how overly cheesy and clich? (albeit kinda cute, imo) the love story has been, it wouldn't surprise me. 

It's hard to say what exactly is the biggest problem of these movies (because they're so numerous), but them being just a set-up for LotR ranks high. I never get the feeling that the crew (sans the actors) were actually excited about filming this particular story. 



Jesus Gai said:


> Not really looking forward to this one. Feel like it's going to be a letdown. I didn't really hate the first 2 movies I just felt they were average.




2 was average and forgettable. 1 was bad. At this point I'm like a battered house wife who keeps returning, but yeah, I'm actually looking forwards to this. Not nearly as much as I used to look forwards to the first film, though.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Aug 10, 2014)

I enjoyed movie 1 as a stand alone more than as an adaptation of Tolkien's work. 2 was terrible absolutely by any standard and a guilty pleasure as it's just flashy(and does'nt make sense either).



> It's hard to say what exactly is the biggest problem of these movies (because they're so numerous), but them being just a set-up for LotR ranks high. I never get the feeling that the crew (sans the actors) were actually excited about filming this particular story



I'm really curious why they felt the need to even add it. I know they had to waste time but that was a horrible thing to add. Evangeline Lily is wasted on that role.

But yes this horribly pales compared to the original LOTR trilogy, I know people may hate the Starwars Prequel comparisons but it does match in the sense the newer trilogy does not capture the wonderment of the original trilogy.

This new movie is going to have to be phenomenally better to salvage this mess of a Trilogy.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 4, 2014)

: *A new Hobbit short called "Here and here still"*.



:rofl


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 5, 2014)

> Part 1: The Askening
> 
> Part 2: The Refusal
> 
> Part 3: The Door





> "YOU SHALL N--"
> 
> ~roll credits~


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Sep 6, 2014)

The first one was really good imo. Not sure why so many people hate it. The second one however was terrible and primarily because Jackson started making shit up instead of sticking to the source material


----------



## Stunna (Sep 6, 2014)

boycotting this movie


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 6, 2014)

This is gonna be great.

It's a shame we don't get more epic fantasy like this in the cinema.



Stunna said:


> boycotting this movie


Good for you.


----------



## Stunna (Sep 6, 2014)

It is good for me; astute observation, albeit a redundant one.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 6, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> This is gonna be great.
> 
> It's a shame we don't get more epic fantasy like this in the cinema.




It'd be nice to have more epic fantasy in cinemas... Do you have in mind any particular fantasy series you'd want to see on the silver screen? I wouldn't mind seeing someting from Robin Hobb.


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 7, 2014)

I would like to see something completely new fantasy.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 7, 2014)

These days pretty much all big movies are adaptations or sequels...


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 7, 2014)

Most fantasy I've read I wouldn't want to see on film. They are too dense to work as simply a film or a trilogy. I honestly would rather see some anime adaptations of epic fantasy novel series. With 24 eps per season.

I wouldn't mind something original story on film if well written, but I would hope it's something more multicultural. I don't want to see more medieval uk fantasy things pretending to be historical fiction.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 7, 2014)

I've thought for long an animated series would be the best option for the Silmarillion. Series, because it allows more loose storytelling. Drawn instead of filmed, because it could enable the similar poetic, distant atmosphere as the book has.


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 7, 2014)

Well I wouldn't mind a Silmarillion film or two since we already have 6 films from this universe.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 7, 2014)

6 films of PJ's Middle-Earth is quite enough for me. If we'll return to this world one day, I'd want some other director do it. Preferably someone who's closer to Tolkien's wavelength when it comes to artistic and dramatic taste.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 7, 2014)

I hate Peter Jackson's reboots.

They omit all of the subtleties that make Tolkien's work great.

Do over, plz.


----------



## tari101190 (Sep 7, 2014)

No more:


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Sep 10, 2014)

Amanda said:


> 6 films of PJ's Middle-Earth is quite enough for me. If we'll return to this world one day, I'd want some other director do it. Preferably someone who's closer to Tolkien's wavelength when it comes to artistic and dramatic taste.



lol i highly, highly doubt that any director could match the original LOTR trilogy. I've loved the books since I was a kid and I almost like those original movies more.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol i highly, highly doubt that any director could match the original LOTR trilogy. I've loved the books since I was a kid and I almost like those original movies more.




FotR is perfect.  But TTT and RotK can be done much better, imo.


----------



## Ennoea (Sep 10, 2014)

The Hobbit Trilogy is so fucking bad. Hopefully Jackson can now stop before he turns in to a bigger hack


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Sep 10, 2014)

Amanda said:


> FotR is perfect.  But *TTT and RotK can be done much better, imo*.



Done much better for you might mean its done much worse for others. No movie can make everyone happy but 17 Oscars + universal critical & audience reception is probably the best it will ever get. I'm content enough that it was a "good" adaptation given how difficult it is to put a book like that on the big screen. 



			
				Ennoea said:
			
		

> The Hobbit Trilogy is so fucking bad. Hopefully Jackson can now stop before he turns in to a bigger hack



lol if you're not a fan of the original trilogy then I doubt you would like any of the Hobbit movies. The second one was mediocre but the first one was alright. "So fucking bad" = Transformer level and none of these movies were transformer level bad. Oh and when did PJ turn into a "hack" lol?


----------



## Amanda (Sep 10, 2014)

Whatever the quality of the Hobbit trilogy is, of course we'll get yet one more Middle-Earth film by him. Then it should be it. I bet he doesn't really feel like filming more either. Even with the Hobbit I get the feeling he's doing it out of sense of duty for New Zealand, its film industry and his buddies, not out of real creative excitement.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 11, 2014)

Even fans of the original trilogy would hate the Hobbit. It has all the flaws of the original trilogy and somehow increased them to higher levels. We have dwarfs surfing on molten metal without sweating or damaging their feet, we have Golden Dwarf statue moment, Radagast and his bunny sleigh, we have ninja orcs, dwarf wearing barrel armor and taking out multiple Orcs, A stupid black arrow introduced that is clearly setting up for the next movie and Jackson wasting time on his own fanon material than the actual material. Smaug should have died this movie not in the next. Thorin is perfectly normally then suddenly Jackson remembers he must set up Thorin's change with talk of "sickness" that was'nt apparant before and sudden lack of concern over Bilbo. The Dwarves spend years waiting to reach the mountain but give up in a matter of few minutes when they can't find the entrance hole. I could go on here.

LOTR trilogy deviated from the source a lot in ways(Faramir and Denethor's potrayals for example) but they despite following Hollywood blockbuster formula like The Hobbit had memorable moments that carried weight like Gandalf the Grey vs Balrog or Sam offering to carry Frodo(infact Sam/Frodo in general had so much emotion) to name some. Even Ian McKellen appears to be phoning it in.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 15, 2014)

*Spoiler*: _Banner_


----------



## Amanda (Sep 15, 2014)

That's pretty. At least the movie will be nice to look at. Assuming WETA Digital won't fail too bad this time.

And is that a Gandalf x Galadriel moment I spot?


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 16, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: _Banner_



Even though I have very low expectations for the upcoming movie, I am hyped for White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. Can't wait for Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond vs. Sauron.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 16, 2014)

Sauron said:


> Even though I have very low expectations for the upcoming movie, I am hyped for White Council's attack on Dol Guldur. Can't wait for Galadriel, Saruman and Elrond vs. Sauron.




Yeah, I'm eager to see this, too. Been ever since it was told it will be in the movie. How long has it been now since the whole project was green lit and we started to get real news? 5 years? It's great that they managed to include Saruman into it, despite Christopher Lee's advanced age.


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 16, 2014)

Amanda said:


> It's great that they managed to include Saruman into it, despite Christopher Lee's advanced age.



Aye, I was also little worried whether they would include him in the battle.


----------



## MF NaruSimpson (Sep 16, 2014)

the white council shall wreck that black friend, at least until LOTR


----------



## Suigetsu (Sep 16, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Done much better for you might mean its done much worse for others. No movie can make everyone happy but 17 Oscars + universal critical & audience reception is probably the best it will ever get. I'm content enough that it was a "good" adaptation given how difficult it is to put a book like that on the big screen.



Oscars are mean Jack shit, they are basically giant polls of people that live in Hollywood that can be persuaded, they are moved by jealousy, hype and sex.

Yes I did like the original triology when I was 14, 15. However ROTK could still be done better and even that got lucky because the fans where able to stop PJ from going batshit insane.

I still like them tought, specially FOTR.

Hobbit movies are mediocre, first one was cringeworthy for those who have read the book, the people that didnt tought  loved it. The second one its just bad, like you said transformers bad.
Next PJ movie with a zombie controlled christopher tolkien.
Blue wizards strike back, featuring the son of Beregond and son of Aragorn. With new fell beasts and people doing orcish cults.
An epic triology - 3 hour each - based on 3 draft pages done by tolkien in his spare time. Dont miss it!


I think PJ its a good director but he needs someone that can keep him in the boundaries of what he is supposed to be doing, also I blame the screenwriters and stuff.
And lets not forget; If only Guillermo Del Toro has done it... how would it had been? Pans Lab kind of thing? Hellboy 2 thing?
Man... I wonder what happened  Maybe he really didnt want to spend 6 years of his life on making 2 movies "back then was 2" which was basically the same story.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb-wROCeqt4[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 16, 2014)

Please don't have Legolas be the one who kills Smaug or contribute in any fashion to it.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 16, 2014)

Sauron said:


> Aye, I was also little worried whether they would include him in the battle.



I know this is almost like a year ago but Christopher Lee made a video last Christmas where he talked about some things, among them his role in this final Hobbit movie:





SECRET TUNNEL.

In Christpher Lee we ttrust.



Tranquil Fury said:


> Please don't have Legolas be the one who kills Smaug or contribute in any fashion to it.



Considering the one that has appeared in the promotional images facing Smaug in Laketown and holding the black arrow is Bard I don't think there is much to worry about.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 16, 2014)

The actors. I'm repeating it to no end, but they really carry this in their capable hands. Christoper Lee, Ian McKellen, Cate Blanchett, Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Lee Pace... in fact even the side characters are played by great actors that make you invested in the character despite the small screen time, retarded scenes and cheesy lines.

And then there's Orlando. 

Don't worry, I still love you, pretty boy. Teenage nostalgia and all that.


----------



## masamune1 (Sep 16, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> SECRET TUNNEL.
> 
> In Christpher Lee we trust.



I find this pretty heartbreaking. 

Age, it seems, has finally caught up with him,

This will almost certainly be his last film.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 16, 2014)

He's 92 but yeah.


> There are frustrations – people who lie to you, people who don't know what they are doing, films that don't turn out the way you had wanted them to – so, yes, I do understand [why Depp would consider retiring]. I always ask myself "well, what else could I do?". Making films has never just been a job to me, it is my life. I have some interests outside of acting – I sing and I've written books, for instance – but acting is what keeps me going, it's what I do, it gives life purpose... I'm realistic about the amount of work I can get at my age, but I take what I can, even voice-overs and narration


----------



## Amanda (Sep 16, 2014)

^ Feels bad to see and hear him like that, but at the same time he's open and honest... 

Oh, and I'd listen voice acting and narration from him any day. :33


----------



## Nuuskis (Sep 16, 2014)

I also would have preferred if Guillermo Del Toro would had made these movies, and only 2. It would have been fresh to have him as director and I am curious on how they would look from art perspective. Maybe he could have made them feel more like a book on big screen?

Sir Christopher Lee won't be in any major role anymore, that's for sure. He's only doing small roles now like what he did in Dark Shadows. But when did Johnny Depp consider retirement from acting? I still want to see him in that one final Pirates of the Caribbean film as Captain Jack Sparrow.  (That movie will probably be crap, but I want to have hope that Disney would still pull off even one good Pirate-movie.[Someone really should make a serious and realistic movie about the real pirates in the 1700s]).


----------



## Stunna (Sep 16, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol if you're not a fan of the original trilogy then I doubt you would like any of the Hobbit movies. The second one was mediocre but the first one was alright. "So fucking bad" = Transformer level and none of these movies were transformer level bad. Oh and when did PJ turn into a "hack" lol?


at least Michael Bay isn't a sellout


----------



## Suigetsu (Sep 16, 2014)

Stunna said:


> at least Michael Bay isn't a sellout



UUuuuuuuuhhhhh!!!!

Wathever that means.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Sep 16, 2014)

i saw this movie as a kid, great cartoon with some memorable moments.


but I dunno what the fuck is with this live action shit...i couldn't even watch past the man-bear part. Was too damn boring... and I'm a _major_ fantasy fan.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Sep 17, 2014)

I see people talking about Sir Christopher Lee here, and I've just got one thing to say: he's among the three best actors ever. Top fucking three! He's a fantastic actor and one of the very few perfect actors. He's got a massive presence, only matched by a couple of other actors (the others in the top 3 of course). Fantastic man!


----------



## Suigetsu (Sep 17, 2014)

Uncle Acid said:


> I see people talking about Sir Christopher Lee here, and I've just got one thing to say: he's among the three best actors ever. Top fucking three! He's a fantastic actor and one of the very few perfect actors. He's got a massive presence, only matched by a couple of other actors (the others in the top 3 of course). Fantastic man!



Yes, one of the greatest actors that has ever lived and graced the silver screen. His voice it`s so boss! Man his kids must have been super god damn lucky, imagine hearing a bed time story by his super voice!

Sir Christopher Lee really its amazing. He also has a very good understanding of the works done by professor tolkien. Which seems to be every englishman`s duty.


----------



## Amanda (Sep 17, 2014)

Didn't Mr Lee meet Tolkien in person?

[YOUTUBE]Ef4njNsDVos[/YOUTUBE]

This gent.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Sep 17, 2014)

Yes he did. The only person involved with the LotR-trilogy who has met Tolkien in person.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Sep 17, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Sep 17, 2014)

^ 

Now that's three things already I look forwards to. The White Council's attack on Dol Guldur, the great acting, and Lee Pace's eyebrows sassiness.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 17, 2014)

> LAWRENCE FRENCH: You first read THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING when it came out in 1954?
> 
> CHRISTOPHER LEE: Yes, and I was immensely impressed with what I read. I still think THE LORD OF THE RINGS is the greatest literary achievement in my lifetime. Like so many other people, I couldn’t wait for the second, and then the third book. Nothing like it had ever been written. Other authors like T. H. White and Lewis Carroll invented imaginary worlds, but Tolkien not only invented an imaginary world, he invented imaginary races, which you can easily believe in. And he created very long appendices with all the family trees and the names of the previous Kings and so-forth. It’s quite incredible, really, the scholarship and imagination that went into the writing of it. And what is even more remarkable is that Tolkien, who was a professor of philology, invented new languages. The Elf languages are two: Quenya and Sindarin. Quenya is based on Finnish, and Sindarin is basically Welsh. Most of the Elves speak Sindarin. And if you want, you can learn to read it, to write it and to speak it, just like English or any other language. I always thought the books would make a wonderful film, but I also felt it would probably never happen, because of the enormous amount it would cost to make. But if they ever were made, I dreamed that I would be in them. It just goes to show you, that sometimes dreams do come true.





> LAWRENCE FRENCH: You actually met J. R. R. Tolkien, didn’t you?
> 
> CHRISTOPHER LEE: Yes, quite by chance, really. I met him with a group of other people in a pub in Oxford he used to go to, The Eagle and Child. I was very much in awe of him, as you can imagine, so I just said, “how do you do?” I also met T. H. White who wrote The Once and Future King





> LAWRENCE FRENCH: Having read the book so many times, you must have had a thorough understanding of Saruman’s history and his place in the story.
> christopher lee wizard fight Sir Christopher Lee on The Lord of the Rings trilogy
> 
> CHRISTOPHER LEE: Yes, from reading the books I naturally knew Saruman and all of the other characters intimately. And the way he is presented in the scripts is the way he is presented in the books. Saruman is one of the great Wizards. When they first came to Middle-earth there were five Wizards. Two of them, the Blue Wizards, are not mentioned. The other three are Saruman the white, who is the greatest of them all. Then, there is Gandalf the grey and Radagast the brown. We don’t see Radagast in the book or in the movie. So basically we have two wizards, Gandalf and Saruman. They have human bodies, but they are immortal. They were sent to Middle-earth by the Valar, who are the creators and guardians of the world. Saruman is number one, the most powerful and the most brilliant of them all. And at the very beginning, Saruman was a good Wizard. He was given the land for his tower at Isengard, and he is the head of the order of Wizards, the Istari, as they are called. He also has one of the seven great seeing stones, a Palant?r. He and Gandalf have been friends for hundreds of years. But, as Gandalf first discovers in THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING, he has been corrupted by the dark power of Sauron. Saruman’s ambition causes him to think he can take over as the Lord of the Rings, because at some stage, he feels that he is more powerful than Sauron. But it’s the biggest mistake he makes in his life, which is many thousands of years. So it’s a question of a great Wizard, one of superior intellect and brilliance, being tempted until the temptation finally overcomes him. He of course pretends to be a servant of Sauron, but Sauron sees through this. It’s a very complex character, superbly written by Tolkein, although a lot of people don’t realize whom the actual Lord of the Rings is. Who do you think it is?
> ...



Escapist reports on the GameGate charity

Sir Christopher Lee and his love of things Tolkien(read more). He knows his mythos so well. 

Anyway bless you sir and may you live many christmases especially to see the Last Hobbit movie.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Sep 17, 2014)

> CHRISTOPHER LEE: Ah, Ian is such a nice man. He always said very nice things about me and I’m happy to return the compliment. Not only is he a very distinguished and eminent actor, with a wonderful record—mainly in the theater—but also to a certain extent in film. He is a major actor and if you find yourself, as I did, playing scenes with him and he’s already had some weeks to get into his part while I’m doing my first day, it can be difficult, to put it mildly. My introduction to the picture was the scene in the garden at Isengard, where I come down the stairs and meet Gandalf. I was up until three in the morning that day, working with Ian McKellen. But Ian was immensely supportive and very encouraging. That doesn’t happen very often these days, where you’re working with a major actor, and they help you and guide you along. But that’s exactly what Ian did with me at the beginning of the film.  I was so glad that most of my scenes were with Ian, especially after I got quite badly injured, when a door slammed on two of my fingers.  My hand was all bandaged and bloody, so I had to hide it and if you look very carefully, you can see that in the film. It was really very difficult, because I was in extreme pain, but Ian was enormously helpful, very encouraging. He’s a tremendous person to work with and you don’t find that very often these days. People are so concerned about what they consider to be rivalry, or confrontation.  They only think about themselves, and they don’t give a damn about the other people who they are working with. But the word is collaboration, not confrontation, and Ian McKellen is a shining example of that.  So many people think another actor might be some sort of threat to them, in terms of performance. There are some big stars that won’t have anybody else in the film with them, because they are so unsure of themselves and you can see that in their films



Ian McKellen seems like a real nice man.


----------



## Pilaf (Sep 20, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> *Spoiler*: __



This is the reason Saruman is an immensely complex character. There was a time in his life where he was legitimately a good person, if a bit of an aloof grump. After seeing this final film and seeing this sympathetic side of him, it's gonna be difficult to watch his scenes in the LOTR trilogy without thinking of that. It's a sharp contrast. It just goes to show you that even the wisest and most powerful being can become unbelievably corrupt.


----------



## Sanity Check (Sep 21, 2014)

.

I like canon Lord of the Rings where orcs are beheading the corpses of the fallen and launching their severed heads over the walls of the city with catapults.  So that townsfolk and soldiers who look at the heads would see faces of people they knew.  And, the city is being assaulted and the gates are being battered with rams.  And, everywhere people are on the verge of giving up or comitting suicide.

And of course the real heroes are the people who continue fighting when circumstances look impossible.

That was a great scene.  Too bad Peter Jackson changed it.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Sep 26, 2014)

Stunna said:
			
		

> at least Michael Bay isn't a sellout



Not sure what you mean by this but its probably as empty as the past criticisms you've made.



			
				Sanity Check said:
			
		

> I like canon Lord of the Rings where orcs are beheading the corpses of the fallen and* launching their severed heads over the walls of the city with catapults.* So that townsfolk and soldiers who look at the heads would see faces of people they knew. And, the city is being assaulted and the gates are being battered with rams. And, everywhere people are on the verge of giving up or comitting suicide.
> 
> And of course the real heroes are the people who continue fighting when circumstances look impossible.
> 
> That was a great scene. Too bad Peter Jackson changed it.



[YOUTUBE]UbH8TfQfziw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Sep 26, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> Oscars are mean Jack shit, they are basically giant polls of people that live in Hollywood that can be persuaded, they are moved by jealousy, hype and sex.



No they aren't. Oscars meaning jack shit is your opinion. They are by no means perfect but every Oscar that the trilogy was able to earn was well deserved imo. I'd need a citation for your latter claim especially due to movies like "The Artist" winning over other hollywood blockbusters and movies like The Hurt Locker winning over Avatar. I'm not sure that such a large organization can be simplified to such absurd generalizations.



> Yes I did like the original triology when I was 14, 15. However ROTK could still be done better and even that got lucky because the fans where able to stop PJ from going batshit insane.



Like I said before to someone else, done better for you can mean done worse for others. PJ was able to successfully create a trilogy that satisfied readers, the general public, the critics, and hollywood in general. That is a massive achievement that will always rank LOTR as one of the greatest trilogies of all time. Keep in mind that PJ's purpose in making these movies wasn't only to satisfy the readers of the books. I think that would have been an easier job for him if he went for that. His grand achievement was making a trilogy that reached out to a very diverse audience. ROTK being the first fantasy film ever to win Best Picture at the Oscars was something that complimented that achievement well regardless of how lowly you perceive it to be. 




> Hobbit movies are mediocre, first one was cringeworthy for those who have read the book, the people that didnt tought  loved it.



I disagree. I read the book and I loved the first film. The Hobbit isn't supposed to be as dark as the LOTR trilogy. Its supposed to be an enjoyable adventure ride in which it was. There was nothing particularly deep about the Hobbit unlike LOTR. The second one I agree was terrible because PJ added to much of his own fantasies and tried to mold LOTR themes in it which didn't work.




> And lets not forget; If only Guillermo Del Toro has done it... how would it had been? Pans Lab kind of thing? Hellboy 2 thing?
> Man... I wonder what happened  Maybe he really didnt want to spend 6 years of his life on making 2 movies "back then was 2" which was basically the same story.



Could have been great. Could have been terrible. Unfortunately, we will never know.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 6, 2014)




----------



## gershwin (Oct 6, 2014)

maan. i just realized lotr movie franchise is ending too along with naruto


----------



## Amanda (Oct 6, 2014)

^ For me LotR film franchise holds the nostalgia factor Naruto perhaps does for the senior fans.


----------



## Swarmy (Oct 6, 2014)

gershwin said:


> maan. i just realized lotr movie franchise is ending too along with naruto



Just wait for the reboots


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 6, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> Hobbit movies are mediocre, first one was cringeworthy for those who have read the book, the people that didnt tought  loved it. The second one its just bad, like you said transformers bad.





heavy_rasengan said:


> I disagree. I read the book and I loved the first film. The Hobbit isn't supposed to be as dark as the LOTR trilogy. Its supposed to be an enjoyable adventure ride in which it was. There was nothing particularly deep about the Hobbit unlike LOTR. The second one I agree was terrible because PJ added to much of his own fantasies and tried to mold LOTR themes in it which didn't work.



I have to agree with heavy_rasengan here. I have read the book, and I think the first Hobbit movie was better and closer to the book's tone and was a better adaption than Desolation of Smaug. Hobbit is supposed to be a fun light-hearted adventure for kids, not a dark and serious prequel for Lord of the Rings like how Peter Jackson has made them. 

And unfortunately it didn't work well, when PJ tried to do both with the first Hobbit. You can't have silly humour for children and then have the dark story with the Necromancer. Maybe these movies would have been better without Dol Guldur-plotline and I can see why Tolkien didn't include it in the book.
The Phantom Menace is a perfect example, Lucas added poop-jokes with Jar Jar Binks, but then there's the serious senate thing.

But Desolation of Smaug wasn't as bad as Transformers, that's just not true. It was a fine fantasy flick on it's own, but it's not very good as an adaption for the book.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 7, 2014)




----------



## Swarmy (Oct 8, 2014)

That's a lot of hair!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 9, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Oct 9, 2014)

All those skin pores. I'm not sure I want this high image resolution. 

Gladdy looks nice, though.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 10, 2014)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 11, 2014)




----------



## gershwin (Oct 11, 2014)

Finaly Thorin  Thx Sennin!


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 12, 2014)

No problem. ^^


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 12, 2014)

Wonder if Tauriel will have something resembling a character this time. I feel bad for her actress, she signed on the condition of no love interest nonsense but ended up getting a story revolving around a guy whom she madly fell in love enough to disobey orders despite knowing for a few minutes.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 13, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Wonder if Tauriel will have something resembling a character this time. I feel bad for her actress, she signed on the condition of no love interest nonsense but ended up getting a story revolving around a guy whom she madly fell in love enough to disobey orders despite knowing for a few minutes.




Made even worse by the facts that she's a Tolkien fan herself and specifically didn't want a role that she would deem against Tolkien's spirit, and because she has already history of being written into bothersome love triangles that make the fandom dislike her.

No points for PJ here.


----------



## gershwin (Oct 13, 2014)

I heard Lily said somewhere in interview that Tauriel won`t die in the movie? I wonder...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 13, 2014)

She could be one of the elves who back to the Undying lands or fade into obscurity to maintain continuity(Jackson probably does'nt care).



Amanda said:


> Made even worse by the facts that she's a Tolkien fan herself and specifically didn't want a role that she would deem against Tolkien's spirit, and because she has already history of being written into bothersome love triangles that make the fandom dislike her.
> 
> No points for PJ here.



To be fair Tolkien had cases of Elves and humans falling for each other and even having children, even one involving an Elf and Maia. A Dwarf and an Elf is'nt that much out there but it's a shame.

Gimli was smitten with Galadriel afterall even if that was akin to a school boy crush. Tauriel could have been someone who questioned her King(whose horribly mischaracterised here) as we had traces of that. That aspect given emphasize more and if they had to do it then a properly built romance would help her character more(if the actress did'nt want such a role based on romance, they should have not done that to her).


----------



## Amanda (Oct 13, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> To be fair Tolkien had cases of Elves and humans falling for each other and even having children, even one involving an Elf and Maia. A Dwarf and an Elf is'nt that much out there but it's a shame.




That's not where the problem lies. But can you imagine Tolkien writing lines like "Aren't you going to search my pants? I could have anything down there." 

They didn't even try.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 13, 2014)

Oh that. Jackson added lines like "Looks like meat is back on the menu boys" since his previous trilogy, remember the excessive dwarf jokes with Gimli?. Yes it's cringeworthy.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 13, 2014)

Yeah, already back then PJ thought it's the funniest thing ever to turn the grim, mysterious warrior race that are the Dwarves into childish jokes. Poor Gimli took the hit alone in LotR, and now PJ has went overboard in the Hobbit. At least there are characters like Thorin and Balin who carry on the spirit of their race from the Legendarium.


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 13, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Oh that. Jackson added lines like "Looks like meat is back on the menu boys" since his previous trilogy, remember the excessive dwarf jokes with Gimli?. Yes it's cringeworthy.



I don't see what's wrong with "Looks like meat is back on the menu boys" I think it was a great line, considering it was an Uruk who said it.

Goofy Gimli certainly was the worst thing in the extended editions, he resembled more Jar Jar Binks than Radagast. I wish Gimli would had remained as he was in the Fellowship of the Ring.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 13, 2014)

I laughed at what Kili said to Tauriel honestly in the last movie and how she dead-pan answered him, sorry.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 13, 2014)

Sauron said:


> I don't see what's wrong with "Looks like meat is back on the menu boys" I think it was a great line, considering it was an Uruk who said it.
> 
> Goofy Gimli certainly was the worst thing in the extended editions, he resembled more Jar Jar Binks than Radagast. I wish Gimli would had remained as he was in the Fellowship of the Ring.



Line felt jarring for some reason. It's up there with Denethor's food manners and other such Hollywoodised changes. The Uruk line is'nt that bad I admit although Gimli as a recurring joke was annoying, did'nt mind the comaradarie between the Fellowship but Jackson should have toned down the jokes because Gimli was reduced to a joke character. Some jokes are acceptable but not when it's 24/7 jokes at the expense of a character's height.

Still I think Gimli's casting was great and enjoyed his fun loving battle craving badass potrayal. I just wish he was allowed to be a more serious character as well.


----------



## martryn (Oct 13, 2014)

> Gimli as a recurring joke was annoying, did'nt mind the comaradarie between the Fellowship but Jackson should have toned down the jokes because Gimli was reduced to a joke character. Some jokes are acceptable but not when it's 24/7 jokes at the expense of a character's height.



I agree.  I fully thought Gimli was a bigger badass than Legolas while reading the books.  Legolas was more the quiet, observant scout, good at archery and shit, but Gimli was the dude you'd want beside you on the battlefield, going toe-to-toe with the heavy shit. 

In Fellowship he was much more of the badass he was meant to be.  Just watch his smooth moves during the Battle of Balin's Tomb.  Little dude was weaving and ducking and chopping down goblin after goblin like it ain't no thang.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 14, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> I laughed at what Kili said to Tauriel honestly in the last movie and how she dead-pan answered him, sorry.




I could have accepted it in some other movie. But with the context of PJ, Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens showing continuous and ever growing disrespect towards Tolkien it was just the dot on the i. 

But thanks for Thranny.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 14, 2014)

^


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 14, 2014)




----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 14, 2014)

Thranduil looks badass in battle armor.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 15, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


>




This makes me think of the great battles of Beleriand. 

Hopefully Bo5A lives up to the hype. We've been waiting for a decade! It will be so interesting to see the different types of humanoids and various critters engage in battle. Not just Men vs Orcs as usual.



Sennin of Hardwork said:


>




This subplot too. Can't wait. 

Yeah I'm getting hyped, mock me.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 15, 2014)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 15, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Oct 15, 2014)

This looks visually so stunning.  Fingers crossed that this time the visuals are great through the movie, and there's no awkward moments of sloppy CGI.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Oct 15, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Line felt jarring for some reason. It's up there with Denethor's food manners and other such Hollywoodised changes. The Uruk line is'nt that bad I admit although Gimli as a recurring joke was annoying, did'nt mind the comaradarie between the Fellowship but Jackson should have toned down the jokes because Gimli was reduced to a joke character. Some jokes are acceptable but not when it's 24/7 jokes at the expense of a character's height.
> 
> Still I think Gimli's casting was great and enjoyed his fun loving battle craving badass potrayal. I just wish he was allowed to be a more serious character as well.



I thought Denethor's food manners fit perfectly with the personality that they portrayed and the charge that Faromir was leading. I too was irritated by Gimli's portrayal but I understood why PJ made that choice. Non-tolkien fans need some comic relief in their movies, especially one as long and as dark as LOTR. And honestly, better Gimli than Legolas, Aragorn, etc. 
This is why it isn't surprising to see that Gimli was generally a hit with non-readers.


----------



## Uncle Acid (Oct 15, 2014)

Amanda said:


> This looks visually so stunning.  Fingers crossed that this time the visuals are great through the movie, and there's no awkward moments of sloppy CGI.



Yeah. I liked both films a lot, but both had awful CGI. The CGI in The Desolation of Smaug was a huge improvement on the CGI in An Unexpected Journey, but it was still bloody awful. I have no idea how CGI as awful as this can get through a quality control. Makes me think they just didn't have one.


----------



## RAGING BONER (Oct 15, 2014)

i'm not up on the lore...but is there any reason why the dwarves never came to help fight Sauron's army in LotR?


at least the Elf's's showed up in 2 Towers...but these stumpy fucks? no show...


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 15, 2014)

Elves never came in original canon, that was movie only(Elves became apathethic and depressed due to their long lives plus the fact they were stuck reminiscing of the glory days and started leaving Middle Earth). Dwarves had their own war considering Sauron's forces attacked all of Arda/Middle Earth, what we see is only a fraction of the war. Even the Shire was ruined in the original canon.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 15, 2014)

RAGING BONER said:


> i'm not up on the lore...but is there any reason why the dwarves never came to help fight Sauron's army in LotR?
> 
> 
> at least the Elf's's showed up in 2 Towers...but these stumpy fucks? no show...




As said, the war had a separate front in the north, where Sauron's forces were fighting with the Men of Dale and Laketown, Dwarves of Erebor and the Elves of Mirkwood. The Elves of L?rien were similarly in war with the enemy forces based in Dol Guldur. 

As for Rivendell, well, it didn't hold that great force to begin with. Elrond's sons departed to fight in the war in the south, and I suspect some other Rivendellian warriors such as Glorfindel did the same on the other fronts.


----------



## Stunna (Oct 15, 2014)

The cementing of Jackson reaching Lucas-tier approaches


----------



## Suigetsu (Oct 15, 2014)

Why do they always portray Galadriel as a slut in these movies? I never could understand.

When I was a kid and the fellowship of the ring was out, my sister told me that Galadriel got laid with frodo and shit. I was only familiar with the hobbit - cause of the cartoon - so I didnt give a shit.
But the understones of her and Gandalf in this - inspired by the hobbit - films, it's way out of hand. It's like PJ just wanted shipping for the sake of shipping.

If he wants shipping he should do Beren and Luthien... Oh wait, forget I said that.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 15, 2014)

Suigetsu said:


> Why do they always portray Galadriel as a slut in these movies? I never could understand.
> --
> But the understones of her and Gandalf in this - inspired by the hobbit - films, it's way out of hand. It's like PJ just wanted shipping for the sake of shipping.




Tsk tsk, don't call her a slut. Though I strongly agree. It's so uncomfortable to watch her flirt with Gandalf while she's married to Celeborn. Who, you know, was also part of the White Council. But just happened to be written out of it for these films, as if the poor bloke never existed. 

PJ has been shipping Gandalf and Galadriel ever since the LotR days, me thinks. In one of the behind-the-scenes documentaries Sir Ian jokingly suggests to PJ that Gandalf could get a love story, and PJ suggests back that it's with Galadriel.



Suigetsu said:


> If he wants shipping he should do Beren and Luthien... Oh wait, forget I said that.




DONT EVEN MENTION THAT

Thanks for Christopher Tolkien, PJ's hands will never touch the Silmarillion.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 15, 2014)

Galadriel is'nt a slut in the original LOTR trilogy not sure what you're referencing Suigetsu. This trilogy does have GandalfXGaladriel undertones sadly. I hope it's more concern in terms of friendship, even in original canon Galadriel wanted Olorin over Curumo to lead the Istari so there is basis for them being close albeit platonic.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Oct 16, 2014)

Yeah, Galadriel is never portrayed as a slut in the LOTR trilogies, I think hes just overreacting. Also, there is a mild love story between her and Gandalf in the Hobbit trilogy, i'm not sure how that means shes a slut. If she was banging Gandalf then I could understand your concern but nothing of that sort is going on.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 17, 2014)

I've never read the books and I have never percieved that the relationship between Galadriel and Gandalf was subtly romantic, just that they are very close friends. It probably is just me but that is how I feel about them. I can recognize romance when I see it.


*Spoiler*: _New images_


----------



## Amanda (Oct 17, 2014)

I don't think either that she is really meant to be in a realationship with Gandalf. But I do think the scenes are written in a way that to the audience watching it happen it comes as ambiguous and borderline flirty. Sort of like John and Sherlock are given "ship tease" which apparently isn't "really" ship tease in the sense that they would actually have a romance going on in-universe - it's teasing the audience, not the actual characters. And yeah, I don't like that kind of teasing at all. 

Or then I'm imagining it all. But I'd also want to know why Celeborn wasn't included in the movies.

Anyway, thanks again for the images. Everyone goes on about Kili, but to me Fili has always looked mighty fine.


----------



## Suigetsu (Oct 17, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Galadriel is'nt a slut in the original LOTR trilogy not sure what you're referencing Suigetsu..





heavy_rasengan said:


> Yeah, Galadriel is never portrayed as a slut in the LOTR trilogies, I think hes just overreacting. .



No no no, i am saying that my sister told me that, galadriel sleeps with frodo, and acts all flirty as fuck "Yes I know she is supposed to be a pure creature"

The Galadriel from the books it's a pure creature and not this flirty slutty bS. It's shenanigans since Celeborn was a pretty Ace guy back then, but in the pj films, he is just there... watching how his wife cheats on him. He doesnt even react, he just, stares and looks.

Pj and hollywood better keep their filthy hands away from the silmarillion and all it's contents. Those books are too pure to be done justice on film.
Unless.... hmm, nope.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 17, 2014)

Galadriel does not cheat on anybody in the LOTR films. I'd say Glorfindel got it worse in that the scene he was supposed to have been in was changed. 

I am not sure what you're trying to say here even. She does'nt have sex with Frodo either.


----------



## Suigetsu (Oct 20, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Galadriel does not cheat on anybody in the LOTR films. I'd say Glorfindel got it worse in that the scene he was supposed to have been in was changed.
> 
> I am not sure what you're trying to say here even. She does'nt have sex with Frodo either.



I am saying it looked like, not that she did. I am joking by using as reference how I percieved the movie. 
I know she didnt, and I know she doesnt, but bear with me. She acts EXTREMELY flirty with everyone.
You clearly didnt got the joke.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 21, 2014)

All the Thranduil we didn't get.  

[YOUTUBE]4BbOnteBj6Y[/YOUTUBE]

You know what, while it's true this scene was expendable, it still reminds me of my pain over the screaming injustice of Sons of the Steward ending on the floor of the editing room. 


*Spoiler*: _for those who don't remember_ 




[YOUTUBE]wMHMQmNfvGY[/YOUTUBE]




Sacrificing memorable character interaction while bloating the action scenes overlong.  

(Agh, again I'm here whining and complaining. Don't get it wrong. It's less than two months now to the last Tolkien movie of our lifetime. This is an event...)


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Oct 21, 2014)

Amanda said:


> *Spoiler*: _for those who don't remember_
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I fucking loved that scene


----------



## Amanda (Oct 21, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I fucking loved that scene




And this scene continues it beautifully:

[YOUTUBE]j5F2kRZabpg[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 22, 2014)

Two clips for the up-coming extended edition of Desolation of Smaug:

[YOUTUBE]pXUWXExvn7Y[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]FuDehwE3zUU[/YOUTUBE]

I find myself waiting this version a lot less than I thought, probably because I was so disappointed with the extended edition for the hirst Hobbit.

Also those scenes both look like they could have easily been in the first movie, like the Wich-King scene when Galadriel is saying her lines. Also, Witch-King of Angmar was buried in a potato sack. 

But the true reason why these extended scenes don't interest me, is because unlike in LotR, they aren't bonus scenes from the book.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 22, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Oct 22, 2014)

Nice poster: they're emphasizing the right characters, I'd say. Though Bilbo's head seems too big. 

Now give us a White Council/Dol Guldur poster.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 23, 2014)

I just literally saw this one on Tumblr, don't know if it is legit but it could fit in what you were wanting to see Amanda:


----------



## Amanda (Oct 23, 2014)

It looks legit. 

More Sauron () is always good. I wonder if they'll delve deeper into his background and motivation as promised years ago, or if that has been dropped. Could be so, also because it'd be hard to include any of that without citing the Silm or Unfinished Tales, neither of which PJ has the rights to.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Oct 23, 2014)

Stuff in appendices and such are fair game though. Also we've gotten references to Morgoth by Gandalf in Two Towers in regards to the Balrog and Radagast referenced Ungoliath in Hobbit in regards to the spiders of Mirkwood. To some extent they probably can but I prefer Jackson leave Sauron enigmatic like Tolkien prefered, even he kept Sauron's dialogue to a minimum, Jackson would arguably botch it when it comes to expanding upon Sauron. For the audience he's an enigmatic evil force that wants to conquer Earth who is a cunning chessmaster and forged The One, it's enough.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 23, 2014)

> *Epic New Stills From THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES*
> 
> The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies will conclude with an epic 45-minute fight pitting a variety of Middle-Earth races against each other t the foot of the Lonely Mountain as they all take aim at the dwarven treasure of Erebor. Some new stills from the movie give us a first look at the titular battle as well as director Peter Jackson's notes on how to bring it to life on the big screen. _"There’s a lot of logistics that have to be thought through,"_ he tells Entertainment Weekly. _"We have dwarves and men and elves and orcs, all with different cultures, with different weapons, and different shields and patterns and tactics. Before we could loose the first arrow, we had to design the landscape itself and figure out, ‘Okay, if we have 10,000 orcs, how much room are they going to take up?’ ”_ Jackson says. _“ ‘Are they going to fill up the valley or look like a speck?’ Then we could start drawing the arrows on the schematics."_ Are you guys looking forward to the movie?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Oct 24, 2014)




----------



## Nuuskis (Oct 24, 2014)

Elrond looks pretty bad ass with his war armour. I hope we get some reference to the war of the Last Alliance when he and the White Council fights Sauron.


----------



## Amanda (Oct 26, 2014)

The armor game is strong in this movie. 

I agree that objectively it's for the best to leave Sauron's character distant and unexplained. However, they have already messed with that by showing his figure, letting Gandalf chat with him and even duel with him. This makes him a character with boundaries, not an omnipresent and all-knowing mysterious force who is just playing with you and over whom you can have no final victory.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 3, 2014)

Damn the images are down, should've saved them so I could repost them. Maybe they'll be released officially later.


----------



## Psychic (Nov 3, 2014)

Are the actors who portrays the dwarves really that short is that special effects?


----------



## Amanda (Nov 3, 2014)

Special effect. Some of the are actually quite tall. Makes the short Martin Freeman look Hobbit-sized when next to them.


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 3, 2014)

The Dwarf king guy is like 6 feet tall in real life.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 3, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Nov 3, 2014)

^ Aww, you just beat me to it. Some fans o already got to see it while visiting the Hobbiton set, though they were sworn to not to give details. "He also required that we viewers not share the details, especially the specifics, so you will not read them here. But I think its okay if I say, it’s serious as a heart attack, gloomy as a storm front and as epic as battle of five armies."


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 4, 2014)

So, extended edition for Desolation of Smaug has been released and some scenes have been already uploaded in youtube.

I am glad they added a scene with Beorn where Gandalf and Bilbo goes to meet him, and then the dwarfs appear pair at a time like in the book, I was disappointed this scene wasn't in the theatrical version. Also more stuff in Mirkwood where Bombur falls in the magical water, when he falls asleep and the others have to carry him.

But what the fuck was Peter Jackson thinking when he added Wilhelm Scream to this scene at 1:50 [YOUTUBE]ssYpJn5YGJc[/YOUTUBE]
It takes away any emotions that scene might otherwise had. There's also another Wilhelm scream in some Bard scene where guards chase him or something.

I think I'm still gonna pass on buying this, adding those ridiculous screams at completely unappropriate moments kinda kills it for me. It's like that added "No" for Vader in Return of the Jedi blu-ray version, it kept me from buying it.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 4, 2014)

Gonna get hype


Psychic said:


> Are the actors who portrays the dwarves really that short is that special effects?



Special effects. Richard Armitage who plays Thorin is 6 feet 2 inches if wiki is accurate on the matter.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 4, 2014)

Seeing that troll reminds me of the fight the Fellowship had in Moria.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 4, 2014)

Yeah, that looks a lot like the cave troll of Moria.

By the way Sennin, you said you haven't read the books, so... should book spoiler discussion be spoiler tagged? Generally I'm used to assuming that everyone knows everything (it's a 70 years old book), but if someone is bothered...


----------



## Uncle Acid (Nov 5, 2014)

As this is a thread about the FILMS I do think it would be wise to put book talk in spoilers. Just because something is old doesn't mean everyone's read or seen it, and some may be planning to do so later on.

I've read the book, but even I prefer to put it in a spoiler tag, and obvious make sure people know the spoiler contains book talk before opening it.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 5, 2014)

In that case


*Spoiler*: _book spoilers_ 





They keep teasing the Thorin & Kili & Fili fates with those images of the three on the battle field, huh?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 5, 2014)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 6, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]oDO0kgexX-k[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Amanda (Nov 6, 2014)

Thanks Sennin!

But lol, that was just pure fanservice from start to finish. Really liked the moments between Thorin and Kili. And once again, Fili is forgotten.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 6, 2014)

"Leave Sauron to me."

Ladies and gentlemen, we may finally see the full abilities of an Istari on film. Gandalf never had to power up all the way in LOTR. His role there was as a leader of Men, not a demigod. Saruman's gonna go all out it seems.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 6, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> [YOUTUBE]oDO0kgexX-k[/YOUTUBE]



Holy fuck that trailer 

I'm so damn hyped.


----------



## silmaril (Nov 7, 2014)

Had to stop myself from shrieking in the middle of class with that Thorin and Kili moment. (but the lack of Fili is disappointing again

Anyways, it looks really good!  I'm hoping for even more character moments, though pj has already done a bang up job of developing the flatter characters from Tolkien's Hobbit.  I'm already 90% sure I'm going to cry in theaters at the ending


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 7, 2014)

The Ringwraiths looks kinda weird in that trailer with their armour and weird looking helmets with horns. I think Saruman will be corrupted by Sauron in this movie.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 7, 2014)

Yes this feels more in line with the LOTR trilogy both in quality and feel. This may redeem the Hobbit trilogy. No more filler.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 7, 2014)

*dances the "lower your expectations" dance*


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 8, 2014)




----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 9, 2014)




----------



## Amanda (Nov 9, 2014)

^ Yes because that is going to end so well.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 9, 2014)

Yes it is funny in some ways


Looking foward to Lee cutting loose on screen both in terms of performance and the actual fight. After how he got shafted in ROTK this is a long time coming.

Sadly the other Lee who plays Thranduil is playing a terribly characterised version of the Elf King.


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 9, 2014)

So was Saruman always in league with Sauron, or will this film cover the time that they first joined forces.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Yes it is funny in some ways
> 
> 
> Looking foward to Lee cutting loose on screen both in terms of performance and the actual fight. After how he got shafted in ROTK this is a long time coming.




I wonder how much action Sir Lee could manage... 



Tranquil Fury said:


> Sadly the other Lee who plays Thranduil is playing a terribly characterised version of the Elf King.




I knew PJ would give him the Denethor treatment. He just can't write this kind of black-and-grey characters to save his life. Which is a crime considering how good Tolkien was at writing them. I'd argue tragic douchebag anti-heroes/anti-villains were his forte when it came to character types. F?anor  T?rin  Maeglin  

So yeah, I was hoping that Thranduil's characterization would be salvaged the same way Gollum's characterization was: by sticking to the source material. Seems like it was too much to hope for.



tari101190 said:


> So was Saruman always in league with Sauron, or will this film cover the time that they first joined forces.




No, Saruman originally worked to beat Sauron with the others simply for the sake of getting rid of him and freeing the world. But in order to do so he studied the Ring lore and knowledge of the enemy too much, and ended up thinking that the best way to go is to replace one lord by making yourself the new one with his own weapons and tactics.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 9, 2014)

Lee has said we'll see Saruman the good so for this continuity he's good at the start. In the books he's jealous of Gandalf due to Galadriel wanting him to lead Istari(Saruman going villain in hindsight made that a good call that should have been followed), infact Gandalf/Olorin is famous for his wisdom amongst the Maia(angels/demi gods). Saruman wanted to stop Sauron but as mentioned he wanted Sauron's power and Sauron also being more powerful than Gandalf and Saruman(Tolkien has gone on record to say he's a much higher order being than them even in their original forms Olorin and Curumo respectively) corrupted and enslaved him(Palantir seeing Sauron was a bad idea).

Saruman is pretending to be loyal to Sauron because he wants The One, Sauron sees through this(Lee himself admits this in one of his interviews) but keeps him because Saruman's manpower and resources can still be useful for the duration of the alliance. If he had gotten The One he'd have overthrown Sauron though.

Saruman did want to be good originally but he felt the need to do anything to achieve his goal coupled with jealous lead him to become arrogant enough to think he could avoid corruption from Sauron or handle him.

tl;dr He's a case of Pride before the fall


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 9, 2014)

Oh I see...

I assumed he was the _if you can't beat 'em, join 'em_ kinda guy.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 9, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Saruman is pretending to be loyal to Sauron because he wants The One, Sauron sees through this(Lee himself admits this in one of his interviews) but keeps him because Saruman's manpower and resources can still be useful for the duration of the alliance. If he had gotten The One he'd have overthrown Sauron though.




That was really risky game from Sauron, though. Saruman came pretty close to getting the Ring. 

Hmm... Perhaps you could theorize that if Boromir didn't try to take the Ring, Frodo wouldn't have made the decision to leave on his own and crossed Anduin before the Uruk-hai attack. They might well have caught the Ringbearer. After that it was very close that the Uruks didn't manage to reach Fangorn before the Rohirrim caught them up. And Saruman himself left Orthanc to meet them in the half-way, but was late from the scene. 

So three strikes of bad luck prevented the scheme from working, all of which could have easily not have happened. Of course, after that it was game over for him. Both remaining other sides had a chance at the Ring while he didn't, and both knew he was a traitor.


----------



## Banhammer (Nov 9, 2014)

Kili and Fili, my ovaries cannot stand to look at you. They are ready to burst


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

Sauron will have a body in the movie? Oh my. I really really love that horse skull helmet and armor, plus in the recent years I've joined the school of thought that Sauron had a physical body during the War of the Ring, so bring it on.


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 10, 2014)

Thanks for ruining the film Sennin.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> Thanks for ruining the film Sennin.




Ruining? How so? You mean getting spoilered?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 10, 2014)

Sauron at this point is'nt supposed to have his body and while book Sauron did have his body minus the ring finger Isildur cut off(Gollum mentions 4 fingers) by the point of the Fellowship onwards,LOTR trilogy movie Sauron did not so Jackson would be contradicting himself(what a surprise) if this happened. Palantir was something Saruman already had when he got Isengard but guess Jackson could ignore that and do his own thing. 

I'm guessing he's still a being of fire and shadow but looks like his original physical body like we see in the trailor. Don't give him a physical form though, else better explain why he did'nt have one in LOTR or clarify if he did in LOTR(they kept treating him as a giant flaming eye so this may be a retcon)


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

I don't mind Sauron having a body, if it's a weak one that he's still building while biding for his time... You can come to the conclusion that he has a body by reading the books, too, even though it's vague.

However, this is again a case where the movies suffer from being made in the wrong order. In this film continuity, if Sauron is to manage to have a body, he should have it during LotR, not in this early state. If we are to see more about him, it should happen later in the tale. If the White Council is to overthrow him and apparently gain a victory, it should happen before the audience sees him back stronger than ever in LotR. I just don't know how they're going to deal with the whole Sauron plotline and make it work with the fact that we've already seen LotR.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 10, 2014)

Book Sauron did have a body I'm not denying that, it's the inconsistency with the original Trilogy as you note. Jackson established in his continuity that Sauron is a giant flaming eye, now he's going with Sauron being able to take physical shape. He'll have to explain this  inconsistency or make a retcon here.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

To be honest the continuity is already ruined for me by the fact that the Gandalf is perfectly aware of Sauron in these movies, and then in FotR it's supposed to seem like he's suddenly and surprisingly creeping out of the dark of the legendary past. The "villain from the dark days" hype and build-up is in FotR, and the Hobbit movies rely on the LotR imaginary and nostalgia to boost itself up. Completely wrong chronology.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Nov 10, 2014)

Man the trailer looks so mediocre. I hope they did that in purpose inorder to keep things hidden and not give away much.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

^ It's showing how it's just the final climax of one story being spread out to be an entire movie of its own. But it's mostly teasing us about the fanboy moments such as all the different races fighting and the White Council attacking Sauron.


----------



## Luke (Nov 10, 2014)

Trailer looks okay. 

I thought the first Hobbit was pretty good, second one was decent but they kinda screwed up the Gandalf related stuff. 

I think making this into two movies would've been a smarter decision than stretching it into three.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

Luke said:


> I think making this into two movies would've been a smarter decision than stretching it into three.




I always remained optimistic and hopeful about the movies... until the news about the three film decision came. After that... yeah, this is one of those cases when you just hate to have to say "I told you so". It's so frustrating to know we were about to get two films, and then it got bloated into this.


----------



## Mallow (Nov 10, 2014)

So generic and boring. My god, could this be any more generic and boring.
First movie at least had the general interest, like how it's all gonna turn out. Second movie had the Smaug card if nothing else. But this is just ugh.
The moment I heard about the third movie I knew that it's gonna be entirely the cgi battle of five armies, which of course wasn't even in the book, and here we are.



Luke said:


> I think making this into two movies would've been a smarter decision than stretching it into three.


A smarter decision would have been to keep Guillermo del Toro as a director. 
This project was doomed the second they got PeeJ back, no matter how many movies it turned out to be.

This adaptation didn't need 3 movies, it needed a fresh and different approach. The one not trying to make another LOTR, except with zero interest and motivation from everyone involved.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

Mallow said:


> A smarter decision would have been to keep Guillermo del Toro as a director.
> This project was doomed the second they got PeeJ back, no matter how many movies it turned out to be.
> 
> This adaptation didn't need 3 movies, it needed a fresh and different approach. The one not trying to make another LOTR, except with zero interest and motivation from everyone involved.




So much truth it hurts.

I remember how people mocked Guillermo for saying he based the silhouette of Smaug on an axe, and said that anyone who looks at an axe and thinks of a dragon shouldn't be allowed to make this movie.

Cue to PJ killing the films by trying to replace genuine inspiration with hollow LotR nostalgia.

Ahhhh, the pain will never go away. I waited for this for a decade... I can't even laugh about it.

Oh well, at least it's nice to see the characters come alive...


----------



## Mallow (Nov 10, 2014)

The Ralph Bakshi version that everyone always mocked is now the definitive Hobbit adaptation


----------



## Amanda (Nov 10, 2014)

I've never even seen it. Only FotR and TTT. Oh, and I've seen those images of the weird frog Thranduil. Wtf?


----------



## Mallow (Nov 10, 2014)

Unlike his LOTR adaptation, his version actually works perfectly for the Hobbit, with that 70s' weirdness, amateurishness and awkwardness. The book had a lot of that as well, plus through that the cartoon definitely retains the most important aspect - the feel of a children's book.

I'd definitely take that over "cool" and "biggerer and betterer than LOTR, just you guys see" PEEJ version, which doesn't even know who it is for.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 10, 2014)

Mallow said:


> So generic and boring. My god, could this be any more generic and boring.
> First movie at least had the general interest, like how it's all gonna turn out. Second movie had the Smaug card if nothing else. But this is just ugh.
> *The moment I heard about the third movie I knew that it's gonna be entirely the cgi battle of five armies, which of course wasn't even in the book, and here we are.*



Uh what? The Battle of Five armies WAS in the book. And tbh, this one looks like its going to be better than both its predecessors. The first one was pretty good because it maintained that level of fun and enjoyment to give it the children book feel but the second one..... 

If you are going to make three movies out of such a small book then the VERY LEAST you should do is not EXCLUDE material from the book. The guy not only excludes material but basically changes practically everything and adds a bunch of new bullshit. I wanted more Beorn. I wanted that hilarious dialogue between Gandalf and Beorn as he kept on revealing the existence of more hobbits. And man, I really wanted the forest scene where they kept seeing lights and hearing laughter and then it would disappear. PJ completely fucked the second one up.


----------



## Mallow (Nov 10, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> Uh what? The Battle of Five armies WAS in the book.


Uh what? No it fucking wasn't. Bilbo faints just as it's about to start and wakes up when it already over. It's a legendary cop out. Which, to be fair, works for the book style.
There are like few sentences about it and the outcome, but there's no factual material for it in the book. The entire movie is just a cgi filler. Which, to be fair again, is what 80% of these movies are as it is.



> And tbh, this one looks like its going to be better than both its predecessors.


1. That's not saying much.

And

2.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 10, 2014)

Mallow said:


> Uh what? No it fucking wasn't. *Bilbo faints just as it's about to start and wakes up when it already over.* It's a legendary cop out. Which, to be fair, works for the book style.
> *There are like few sentences about it and the outcome*, but there's* no factual material for it in the book.* The entire movie is just a cgi filler. Which, to be fair again, is what 80% of these movies are as it is.



lol. Have you even read the fucking book? Because all of those claims are just pure bullshit. 

Firstly, it helps to re-word your initial statement so that it could actually depict what you are trying to say. Claiming that the battle of five armies wasn't even in the book implies that its a fabrication when it isn't.



> *There are like few sentences about it and the outcome*, but there's* no factual material for it in the book.*



Putting it in spoilers for crybabies like Tari.


*Spoiler*: __ 





> So began a battle that none had expected; and it was called the
> Battle of Five Armies, and it was very terrible. Upon one side were the
> Goblins and the wild Wolves, and upon the other were Elves and Men and
> Dwarves. This is how it fell out. Ever since the fall of the Great Goblin of
> ...






Page 190


*Spoiler*: __ 





> places while there is yet time!
> On the Southern spur, in its lower slopes and in the rocks at its feet,
> the Elves were set; on the Eastern spur were men and dwarves. But Bard
> and some of the nimblest of men and elves climbed to the height of the
> ...






Page 191


*Spoiler*: __ 





> Goblins had scaled the Mountain from the other side and already
> many were on the slopes above the Gate, and others were streaming
> down recklessly, heedless of those that fell screaming from cliff and
> precipice, to attack the spurs from above. Each of these could be reached
> ...






Page 192

And it continues from here. Lol @ "a few sentences and no factual material"




> *Bilbo faints just as it's about to start and wakes up when it already over.*



You got this half right.


*Spoiler*: __ 





> Actually I must say he put on his
> ring early in the business, and vanished from sight, if not from all danger.





> Day drew on. The goblins gathered again in the valley.





> On all this Bilbo looked with misery. He had taken his stand on
> Ravenhill among the Elves-partly because there was more chance of escape
> from that point,





> The Eagles! cried Bilbo once more, but at that moment a stone
> hurtling from above smote heavily on his helm, and he fell with a crash
> and knew no more.







This in addition to all of the information the Gandalf gave AFTER the battle. And since the Eagles came at the closing of this battle, Bilbo faints near the *end* of the battle. 

There is more than enough information and hype around this battle in the book to make it a pivotal part of a movie let alone 3 movies.


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 11, 2014)

This isn't the book thread.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 11, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> This isn't the book thread.



We've been talking about the fucking books in this thread since before this movie was even announced and NOW you come in here and say that? Don't read my posts for now on, or better yet, just don't come in this thread. Lol @ complaining about spoilers from a 80+ year book.


----------



## tari101190 (Nov 11, 2014)

This is a movie thread.

If you want to talk about the books go make a book thread.

It's not a difficult concept to understand.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 11, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> This is a movie thread.
> 
> If you want to talk about the books go make a book thread.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to understand.



Cry me a fucking river. 


Edit: I put the quotes in spoilers to stop your incessant whining


----------



## Amanda (Nov 11, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> This is a movie thread.
> 
> If you want to talk about the books go make a book thread.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to understand.





If you want to talk about the books, come to . 

I agree that this thread is for the movies. However, I'd say talking about the books is reasonable when one discusses the movies as adaptations.


----------



## Mallow (Nov 11, 2014)

tari101190 said:


> This is a movie thread.
> 
> If you want to talk about the books go make a book thread.
> 
> It's not a difficult concept to understand.


Galdalf dies.


----------



## Ms. Jove (Nov 11, 2014)

The compromise is that you spoiler tag the book stuff, which is a reasonable request.


That said, nothing in the Theatre that is based on source material should ever be considered absolved from discussing the source material.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 11, 2014)

Did someone just say the Bakshi version is better?Hope that was'nt a Tolkien purist because their beloved god ripped that to shreds(to be fair he'd do that to Jackson's work too). Smaug in this version is way better than the one in that cartoon and arguably one of the few things I consider PJ doing right. Shame he neutered the speech and added that stupid furnace scene with dwarves surfing on molten lava unscathed.

The Hobbit should not be LOTR redux outside maybe the Battle of the Armies which is okay to show even if Tolkien did not but the previous movie/movies(assuming we go with the original 2 movies or Jackson's 3) should have felt like a Disney/Pixar movie i.e a Children's book with Bilbo not being marginalised for Legolas, Azog, Tauriel, Gollum and such who should'nt be there. Bilbo and Thorin are the central characters here. Too much was removed despite him having 3 whole movies worth of time because he just wanted to add his own stuff or play off LOTR nostalgia.

I don't mind certain changes PJ makes to the mythos(I don't want a battle between Istari and Sauron to be off screen only) but not all of those changes are good as well. Thranduil, Denethor, Faramir etc are examples of negative change that should not be. Thrain has been shafted from the movies because he claims there was'nt enough time, time that he wasted on people who should not have even been there. 

He's more interested in Hollywoodising stuff like randomly adding Arwen tied to the ring to expand on an already expanded lovestory(to be fair, she does'nt appear much in the books so some focus on her was'nt bad but it was the wrong kind of focus to create drama, it was okay to establish her connection to Aragorn since movie 1 however).

I enjoy his LOTR trilogy despite it's flaws(one of my fav movies I still watch sometimes) and being a bad adaptation overall of Tolkien(it did however arguably help push more readers to give the original source a try like myself). Hobbit 1 was'nt bad and gave a glimpse of something partly resembling the books, 2 just throws everything and might as well be bad fanfiction. 3 is trying to be LOTR redux if the others weren't already.


----------



## Mallow (Nov 11, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Did someone just say the Bakshi version is better?





> Hope that was'nt a Tolkien purist because their beloved god ripped that to shreds





> (to be fair he'd do that to Jackson's work too).


So that was even the point of the "did someone just..." schtick if you negate it entirely in the next sentence?


Is Bakshi version better? Indisputably yes.
Is it then good? No. It's not utter shit like Peej's, however. It also represents the book better. That is at all.
Would Tolkien give Bakshi an apologetic blowjob after seeing PeeJ version? No doubt about it.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 11, 2014)

Some movies are faithful adaptations that satisfy the readers who want to see their favorite book illustrated, but offer little to the non-book fans. Some movie adaptations are great, entertaining films, even though they resemble the source material only little, possibly causing endless hurt in the butts of the book fans. Imo both approaches can be justified and have their place. 

The problem with the Hobbit films is that they're neither. They're not faithful adaptations of the original book, and they're not that good stand alone movies either. Hell, they're not even good sequels to the LotR movies. That's the worst case scenario. The audience is left to trying to find what to enjoy about them. I manage to find those enjoyable things too... but I rather wished I didn't have to try to reason why to like them. :/


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 11, 2014)

I sort of agree Amanda, someone compared Hobbit to Star Wars prequels and I think it's fair considering what Jackson has done to The Hobbit. Shame it was'nt GDT and two movies. 



> So that was even the point of the "did someone just..." schtick if you negate it entirely in the next sentence?



Nothing is negated, both are horrible adaptations for different reasons, why would the stupid crap in Bakshi be negated by stupid crap in Jackson's?You're saying it's better because Bakshi did silly stuff like giant cat with headlights for a dragon or his Gandalf?



> Will Tolkien give Bakshi an apologetic blowjob after seeing PeeJ version? No doubt about it



I guarantee you he'll think better of Gandalf by McKellen than he did of the one in Bakshi. Not sure what he'd think of Smaug or Thorin. Not sure what he'd think of Viggo Mortensen as Aragorn in the original LOTR trilogy but he'd hate Gimli, Faramir, Denethor and many others. Saruman seems closer to what he'd want and Lee is a fan of Tolkien.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 11, 2014)

Mallow said:


> Is Bakshi version better? *Indisputably yes.*
> Is it then good? No. It's not utter shit like Peej's, however. It also represents the book better. That is at all.
> Would Tolkien give Bakshi an apologetic blowjob after seeing PeeJ version? No doubt about it.



Uh no it isn't. Using the term "indisputably" is also a massive exaggeration. Bakshi's version was shitty but the Hobbit 1 was decent. I believe the second hobbit to suck because of all the changes that were made but people that didn't read the book liked it and many loved it. And I'm going to take your "represents the book better" with a grain of salt after your multiple false claims about what the book contains and doesn't contain a few posts earlier. 
The Hobbit trilogy will *most definitely* outlive Bakshi's version given that the latter is already forgettable and no one really gives two shits about it. Not sure why we're comparing the two anyways given the vast differences. 




			
				Amanda said:
			
		

> Some movies are faithful adaptations that satisfy the readers who want to see their favorite book illustrated, but offer little to the non-book fans. Some movie adaptations are *great, entertaining films, even though they resemble the source material only little*, possibly causing endless hurt in the butts of the book fans. Imo both approaches can be justified and have their place.
> 
> The problem with the Hobbit films is that they're neither.



I'm not sure where you are basing this judgement. Fyi, the Konoha Theater doesn't constitute the entire world nor does it constitute a consensus for what the rest of the world enjoys. Both Hobbits most definitely fall in the latter category. People that haven't read the book liked the movies very much especially in regards to the visuals, acting and cinematography. The movies may pale in comparison to the LOTR trilogy and I believe the second Hobbit to be trash but that doesn't mean people don't think it was entertaining.

In regards to audience reception, both the Hobbits score very high. Even in regards to critical reception, both Hobbits score surprisingly high. 

Again, its those that have read the book that have the most problems with these prequel movies.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 11, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> I'm not sure where you are basing this judgement. Fyi, the Konoha Theater doesn't constitute the entire world nor does it constitute a consensus for what the rest of the world enjoys. Both Hobbits most definitely fall in the latter category. People that haven't read the book liked the movies very much especially in regards to the visuals, acting and cinematography. The movies may pale in comparison to the LOTR trilogy and I believe the second Hobbit to be trash but that doesn't mean people don't think it was entertaining.
> 
> In regards to audience reception, both the Hobbits score very high. Even in regards to critical reception, both Hobbits score surprisingly high.
> 
> Again, its those that have read the book that have the most problems with these prequel movies.




I wasn't even a member of Narutoforums when the Unexpected Journey came into theaters. Back then I was active on TORn. So Konoha Theater is the last source to influence my understanding of the films.

My opinion of the movies is my own. Whatever impression I have of the general opinion people have them is based on discussing with other Tolkien fans, casual fantasy fans, general public audience members, and reading the movie reviews by different publishers. 

The general impression I've got is that people think they're either ok or bad. True, the comparison to LotR isn't exactly favorable to them. But people who think they're really good are pretty scarce.

However, I realize that this is a very subjective issue.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Nov 11, 2014)

Amanda said:


> I wasn't even a member of Narutoforums when the Unexpected Journey came into theaters. Back then I was active on TORn. So Konoha Theater is the last source to influence my understanding of the films.
> 
> My opinion of the movies is my own. Whatever impression I have of the general opinion people have them is based on discussing with other Tolkien fans, casual fantasy fans, general public audience members, and reading the movie reviews by different publishers.
> 
> ...



Me too. But I usually discuss these things with like-minded people (whether intentionally or not). However, you'd be surprised to find that both movies are generally, very liked. 

Note that IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes have compiled more than a million audience reviews and the average rating given is something around 4/5. The first Hobbit scores at 64 percent on RT and 58 percent on Metacritic. These are pretty *good* ratings when you put it in context. The second Hobbit (i have no idea why) scored even higher (75 percent on RT and 66 percent on Metacritic). 

My point being that in regards to the general audience and critical reception, they weren't bad movies at all. I know that if I hadn't read the books, I would appreciate both the movies much, much more. As it stands, I believe them to be terrible adaptations (unlike LOTR) but pretty decent movies in their own right. The first one, especially.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 11, 2014)

Yeah, they're better as stand alone movies than as adaptations. Also they're better if one tries to think of them without the context of LotR. 

Perhaps the fact that I saw LotR films before reading the books contributed to me being able to love both sides of the fandom without complaints. Honestly, I first watched FotR without any expectations whatsoever, I just decided to watch it so I would understand what all my friends are babbling about. Boy was I blown out.

Heh... remember how insanely hyped this series was? "The most anticipated sequel in the movie history" some called it. I think at the end of the day there was no way PJ could have lived up to those expectations. Perhaps he just tried too much, thinking that a smaller story wouldn't satisfy people.

Anyway, despite all this negativity I again must remind that there are things about the films that I really really like, and that I'm looking towards to seeing the final film.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 11, 2014)

Amanda said:


> To be honest the continuity is already ruined for me by the fact that the Gandalf is perfectly aware of Sauron in these movies, and then in FotR it's supposed to seem like he's suddenly and surprisingly creeping out of the dark of the legendary past. The "villain from the dark days" hype and build-up is in FotR, and the Hobbit movies rely on the LotR imaginary and nostalgia to boost itself up. Completely wrong chronology.



In Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf wasn't worried that Sauron was back, he was concerned that Bilbo's ring was The One.


----------



## Amanda (Nov 12, 2014)

Nuuskis said:


> In Fellowship of the Ring, Gandalf wasn't worried that Sauron was back, he was concerned that Bilbo's ring was The One.




The point is, he is revealed to the audience in the Hobbit. We even get to see him, hear him have dialogue and even engage in a duel. Then in LotR he is supposed to be mysterious and distant (which always was a really cool approach to him), an invisible and invisible force of nature beyond our full comprehension.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 12, 2014)




----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 19, 2014)

As the tag says...

*Spoiler*: __ 





> -Goblins may appear in The Battle of Five Armies? The book talks about the Goblins of the Misty Mountains hating the sun and needing manufactured night if they are to fight.
> 
> -Different types of trolls that appear in The Battle of Five Armies: Snow Trolls (only before seen in a Lord of the Rings video game), Cave Trolls, and Olog-hai.
> 
> ...








These are interesting. Thranduil reveal may even make him a sympathethic antagonist if true.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 21, 2014)




----------



## eHav (Nov 21, 2014)

how the hell do i tag this 

[YOUTUBE]lvB_nsKXew0[/YOUTUBE]

nvm got it by quoting other posts


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Nov 21, 2014)

Thorin and Thranduil have the best armor designs so far.


----------



## Pilaf (Nov 22, 2014)

Gandalf definitely knew Sauron was back by the time of Fellowship. I own pretty much the entire Tolkien library, and this shit gets mentioned in _Unfinished Tales_ and in several appendixes. I feel like the parts of the Hobbit movies that show the White Council shit are mostly based on this content, which was entirely J.R.R. Tolkien's vision with a bit of minor detail filling by his son Christopher, which to me might as well be official. 

Would I have personally included it in a movie called The Hobbit? Fuck no. It should be its own thing, honestly. Does it ruin this trilogy for me? Not really. I kind of enjoy those scenes, though I feel they detract from the core narrative which is Bilbo's personal journey and the journey of the Dwarves.


----------



## Bruce Wayne (Nov 23, 2014)

Three more weeks left.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Nov 26, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> [YOUTUBE]oDO0kgexX-k[/YOUTUBE]



i loved the big war battles that Two Towers and Return of the King had ,this one look just as epic, i can't wait.

i bet Middle-earth Book fans will hate this movie but the Middle-earth movie fan will love it.

thankfully i am from the movie side of the fanbase.


----------



## Tom Servo (Nov 26, 2014)

Why is Smaug even on the cover? Won't he just die in the beginning?


----------



## Amanda (Nov 26, 2014)

Bruce Wayne said:


> Three more weeks left.




Hadn't realized it's so soon. 



Tom Servo said:


> Why is Smaug even on the cover? Won't he just die in the beginning?




Even if he had a half a minute cameo they would use him in all the merchandise.


----------



## Linkdarkside (Nov 26, 2014)

Tom Servo said:


> Why is Smaug even on the cover? Won't he just die in the beginning?



Because he is a dragon and Dragons are bad ass.


----------



## Nuuskis (Nov 26, 2014)

Tom Servo said:


> Why is Smaug even on the cover? Won't he just die in the beginning?



For the same reason they put Darth Vader in a lot of merchandise for Revenge of the Sith, even though the character appeared for only like 10 seconds in the movie, money.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 26, 2014)




----------



## Dragonus Nesha (Nov 26, 2014)

Tom Servo said:


> Why is Smaug even on the cover? Won't he just die in the beginning?


Confirmation that he won't get the Saruman treatment?


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Nov 27, 2014)




----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 1, 2014)

Dain Ironfoot.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 1, 2014)

The famous battle pig finally emerges.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 1, 2014)

Sennin of Hardwork said:


> Dain Ironfoot.


A person on TORN posted spoilers for the movie. He says Dain is entirely CGI


----------



## Stunna (Dec 1, 2014)

Of course he is.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 1, 2014)

CGI Orcs, CGI Elf army, CGI Trolls, CGI Dragon, CGI Christopher Lee etc. We should list things that are'nt CGI(would be a short list I'm sure)


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 1, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> CGI Orcs, CGI Elf army, CGI Trolls, CGI Dragon, CGI Christopher Lee etc. We should list things that are'nt CGI(would be a short list I'm sure)


ah, a CGI hater how cute.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 1, 2014)

observing that this trilogy's over-saturation of CGI has made it soulless compared to the first trilogy =/= being a CGI hater


----------



## Amanda (Dec 2, 2014)

gershwin said:


> A person on TORN posted spoilers for the movie. He says Dain is entirely CGI




Why?

Why is he CGI?


----------



## Delta Shell (Dec 2, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Why?
> 
> Why is he CGI?



Unfortunately the real battle pig they bred and trained for 6 years was turned into a cumberland sausage and sold to Tesco.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 2, 2014)

Delta Shell said:


> Unfortunately the real battle pig they bred and trained for 6 years was turned into a cumberland sausage and sold to Tesco.




Thranduil is riding an elk. Lee Pace filmed it by riding a horse that was replaced by a CGI elk in post-production. If they really can't replicate that process with a pig, they should question is it worth it. The trilogy is already way too full of CGI this and that. 

Well, hopefully we see more of the real Dain than of the CGI Dain, and the difference between the two won't be too obvious.... though I'm not holding my breath after the CGI orcs.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 2, 2014)

Stunna said:


> observing that this trilogy's over-saturation of CGI has made it soulless compared to the first trilogy =/= being a CGI hater



Post a screenshot from the first trilogy that doesn't utilize CGI in some way. It's possible, but it can't be a picture of any of the hobbit characters, any outdoor scene or any battle scene. The LOTR movie trilogy is famous for its abundant use of CGI among other things. I'm amazed you never noticed.


----------



## Stunna (Dec 2, 2014)

Of course it used CGI; where'd I say it didn't? It sure as hell used it better than these films, though.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 2, 2014)

Dain may not be CGI, the guy is'nt sure. Anyway spoilers, take with a grain of salt as it may spoil a lot. some guy on TOR claims to have seen it.


*Spoiler*: __ 



NON SPOILER REVIEW

There is a LOT to enjoy, particularly in the first 2/3 of the movie. I don't think it felt like a single beat was missed. I enjoyed this leg of the film immensely. The last 1/3 has a lot to enjoy but also has many moments that will make even the most forgiving fan a little upset. That said I think the film is quite good, it just wobbles its way to the finish line, which is unfortunate. There are a few over the top scenes that make Bombur's barrel ride in DOS look tame. Also the Tauriel storyline will divide fans.











SPOILER REVIEW

I'll comment on the first 2/3 of the film later. For now I'll focus on the "bad" moments in the last 1/3 of the film. Mostly to put the information out there, and prepare you for the film.

- Dain IS CGI. I'm not sure why, since it seems like they had him in prosthetics for the shoot. For whatever reason he is entirely replaced digitally. While it did take me out of the movie at first, his character is quite small in the story and disappears before the end of the battle. His fate isn't explored in the film.

-Beorn is essentially CUT from the film. He has two or three shots. He rides in on an eagle, jumps off, transforms into a bear as he falls, kills a few orcs and then disappears entirely from the movie. He has maybe 15 seconds of screen time. There HAS to be more. This was the biggest shock, and honestly quite insulting considering they give Legolas WAY TOO much time in the third act.

-Likewise Radagast has had his screentime cut. There is a scene in Rhosgobel early on that follows the events of Dol Guldur that clearly has more to it, they cut mid-scene and it's very clear there is more to the scene. He appears on the eagles at the end but has no lines. I'm assuming there's a scene with him post-battle that is being saved for the EE.

-Legolas has an absolutely absurd battle with Bolg in the third act. By absurd I meant CGI Die Hard with a Vengeance level of bad. He rides a bat up to Ravenhill (flashbacks of Kong) and then proceeds to aid Thorin in battle by firing off arrows at orcs. When Tauriel is in danger he slays an troll, casting him into a large stone tower that crumbles and forms a "bridge" between him and Tauriel who is being tormented by Bolg. What follows is an insane sequences in which Legolas literally seems to create his own gravity. It's an OTT sequence that really feels out of place.

-Legolas and Thranduil share a scene that feels out of a marvel movie. Thranduil tells Legolas to literally go find "Strider." Is Thranduil the Nick Fury of the Fellowship?

-Tauriel's entire character is diminished by the love story that seems undercooked. It's essentially her purpose in the film, to "love Kili" and mourn him when he dies. I missed the bad ass from DOS.

-The "Other" dwarves don't really get any form of sendoff, in fact most of them beyond Thorin, Fili, Kili, Balin and Dwalin are lucky to even have a line. I hope the extended cut rights this, they are horribly robbed. Legolas gets two or three big scenes about his "mother," which feels like a waste of screentime that could have been used on character actually in "The Hobbit."

SUPER SPOILER

-The Durin Boys: Fili once again is shorthanded but has a couple good scenes. His death is a scary moment, he's killed "on display" to Thorin as a taunt. It's a well executed scene but it excludes any fighting or heroics from the character. Likewise, Kili's death is entirely based around his love story with Tauriel. You will either roll with this or not. I have no problem with their story, that said I don't really buy their romance.

-I need to see it again but azog vs. Thorin was a bit too Die Hard for me. It's a cool battle but I wanted an emotional battle. It's an action scene and it was hard for me to feel the same pain I felt when Boromir fought to the death. It shows the huge evolution (and devolution) of PJ's directing.


OTHER SPOILER COMMENTS

-Dol Guldur is short, perhaps more will be included later, but it feels right. Nothing feels unresolved and it's a very nice sequence.

-The Windlance that was set up in DOS has no payoff, it's not even seen in the film or mentioned.

-There are giant worms... why? I'm not sure. They are only briefly in the film but they are an odd inclusion.

-Gundabad was awesome. Not a big part of the movie but it was absolutely a surprise to me that it'd be in the film.

-No Ironhills which is sad. I wonder if there is more to the Dain storyline. It seems quite odd that his part is so small and that he is ENTIRELY CGI'd. A big, big disappointment.

-The original Bolg makes a very small cameo, literally a couple shots. But it was neat to see him again




If true it seems lots was cut out for stuff that should'nt have been there. Again this may not be true.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 2, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Dain may not be CGI, the guy is'nt sure. Anyway spoilers, take with a grain of salt as it may spoil a lot. some guy on TOR claims to have seen it.
> 
> 
> *Spoiler*: __
> ...



Assuming its true:


*Spoiler*: __ 



I fucking hate how marginalized Beorn is. He was hardly in DOS and i thought that its because he'll have a much larger role in this one but if what that guy says is true, then that is lame as fuck


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 2, 2014)

BTW Dain's actor has health issues so that may explain the CGI similar to Christopher Lee who shot his scenes at his home then got CGI'd.

Anyway some more stuff

*Spoiler*: __ 





> Re: Tauriel/Kili. I've never had an issue with Legolas and Tauriel being in these films. I think my main problem in DOS is Tauriel's healing scene, but not because of the Kili love story, but because it just isn't directed or edited well. I quite like Evangeline but that's her weakest scene in DOS, acting wise. t's the only scene in DOS that still irks me. I do however like the dialogue between Kili and Tauriel about starlight that follows the healing scene. I honestly don't have an issue with the way their romance is played out in that film. In BOTFA their romance starts out just the way you'd want it. They have one lovely scene early on and then they part ways. It's at Ravenhill that she tries to find him (after being told he's in danger). It starts with her in danger from Bolg, Kili jumps in to the rescue. I'll leave the rest to the imagination. This actual skirmish isn't bad. It's effective. A big detractor of this is that it's intercut with Legolas but more on that later. My issues with Tauriel in this movie that come after Kili's passing. It's a bit hammy, and I don't quite buy Evangeline's performance here. This is another scene that would have been better served with more subtlety. The ruin stone makes a nice comeback in this film and has a nice moment at the end. Unfortunately it drags on a bit, there's a kiss involved, lots of crying from her, and eventually a rather heavy handed scene between her and Thranduil, I'm sure these moments will improve on repeat viewings but it's disappointing that these scenes lack emotional bite. I quite liked Kili/Tauriel's feast of starlight scene in DOS, so it was sad for me that nothing matched that hear, especially in the pivotal moments of that storyline. All in all, the romance adds very little in hindsight. I would have preferred that they had used the screentime to beef up the relationship between FilI and Kili, and left Tauriel as the bad ass elven warrior.
> 
> Legolas. I'm not sure what happened to him between BOTFA and FOTR but his stunts became a lot less extravagant (sarcasm). To be honest, one of my main issues with this character in these films is not that he's in them. I like the relationship between him and his dad. My issue stems from PJ's need to make him into a Marvel superhero. If you thought his stunts in DOS were over the top, you are in for a treat in this film. It's literally a joke at this point, and treated as such in this film. The issue is that his big heroics come at the most pivotal part of the movie and serious undermine the hole thing. He's saving Thorin, He's saving Tauriel. He's killing Bolg. He's slaying orcs. He's tossing Orcrist up 100ft into an orc to pass it along to Thorin. It gets absurd, and is unforgivable. I grew to like his fight scene with Bolg in DOS, largely because it's his only grounded and real fight scene in the film. In this film, we are not so lucky. It is literally a James Bond, Matrix style fight scene on a crumbling tower suspended across a glacier. When the ground caves out beneath them, Legolas literally hops along the falling bricks, creating his own path to safety. The audience laughed at how stupid it was. It reminded me of the slow motion CGI sequences in the recent Die Hard movies. It's a dumb moment. A gritty Lurtz style fight scene would have sufficed (but in all honesty, why wasn't Beorn given the chance to dispatch Bolg? there are bear paws on his shoulders, I thought this was a set-up for that. I guess not). Anyways, these Legolas moments are dumb. He literally rides a bat up a mountain and then shoots it mid-flight and lands perfectly on a tower where he proceeds to "save Thorin's skin"
> 
> ...








Again take with a pinch just to be safe.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 2, 2014)

[YOUTUBE]ShvKCjaXgKo[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]75x9Vi3X9ZY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 3, 2014)

Billy Connolly has Parkinson's now, so it may not have been possible for him to actually act out his scenes. Just a thought.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 3, 2014)

@ Pilaf

If that's the reason, then it's forgivable. Though why not then cast someone who can act his scenes?

@ spoilers


*Spoiler*: __ 





Sounds about what I expected the movie to be like. Oh well then. As long as everyone is as in-character as possible, most importantly Thranduil isn't given the Denethor treatment, I can deal with it


----------



## Linkdarkside (Dec 3, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> BTW Dain's actor has health issues so that may explain the CGI similar to Christopher Lee who shot his scenes at his home then got CGI'd.






Pilaf said:


> Billy Connolly has Parkinson's now, so it may not have been possible for him to actually act out his scenes. Just a thought.



if that true then why they chosen him as the actor to portray Dain, i mean whit Christopher Lee is understanding since he portrayed Saruman previously but Dain II haven't been portrayed by anyone before the Battle of the Five Armies.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 3, 2014)

As per wiki


> In September 2013 an announcement was made that Connolly had undergone minor surgery for early stage prostate cancer.The announcement also stated that he is being treated for the initial symptoms of Parkinson's disease. Connolly admitted earlier in 2013 that he had started to forget his lines during performance



It seems he was diagnosed during shooting, it's unfortunate but stuff like this happens.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 3, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> It seems he was diagnosed during shooting, it's unfortunate but stuff like this happens.




I see. Sorry it happened to him, it must be scary (not to mention impractical) to notice you've started to forget things. Age doesn't come alone.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Dec 3, 2014)

*Spoiler*: _Stills_


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 8, 2014)




----------



## Goldgroger (Dec 8, 2014)

Really does that happen with stars like them too. i thought it happned only with me..


----------



## Stein (Dec 9, 2014)

Dat Galadriel


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 10, 2014)

Ah, so she's finally showing why she's feared. Good move, PJ. I like Galadriel in beast mode.


----------



## kire (Dec 10, 2014)

I always wanted to watch these movies but never had the time.  Sometime in the next couple of weeks, I'm going to have a marathon and watch them all..They look really good.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 11, 2014)

Already watched it. Loved the battles, especialy Thorin vs Azog, realy epic.
Also all the Thorin/Bilbo interaction, imo,  highlight of the movie. Last few scenes between them (actualy Martin Freeman`s acting) moved me to tears 
Dain indeed looks cgi when he first appears, but later he is ok.
The elves though...The whole subplot between Thranduil/Thauriel/Legolas literally doesnt make any sence. I was wtf-ing every time they spoke to each other  Maybe extended version will bring some justice because for now everything about it is just weird.
^ edit, i connected the dots. somehow i missed the scene about thranduil wife`s necklace, so now i see what everything was about XD still has problems with details though.
Also, 

*Spoiler*: __ 



 Galadriel in scary witch mode!  What the hell was that?? 




Lots of people in cinema were actualy shocked that certain characters died lol.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 11, 2014)

Watching it in a few hours!



gershwin said:


> Also all the Thorin/Bilbo interaction, imo,  highlight of the movie. Last few scenes between them (actualy Martin Freeman`s acting) moved me to tears[/SPOILER]
> 
> 
> That's the most important job for any movie to achieve, so good to hear.
> ...


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 11, 2014)

Bookfags(me) will never watch a PJ adaptation again. Oh man, he should have never done hobbit.


----------



## dream (Dec 11, 2014)

PJ should have just adapted The Silmarillion as a TV series.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 11, 2014)

That'd be fucking awesome. Sadly I heard that Christopher tolkien banned PJ from Silmarillion rights after watching Hobbit.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 11, 2014)

Reviews coming in are looking pretty good. Many critics claiming that this one is the best by far.


----------



## Muk (Dec 11, 2014)

So the last part of hobbit is out?


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 11, 2014)

So far the movie has highest rating out of all three movies in Rotten Tomatoes. That could still get lower when more reviews comes.

Based on the spoilers by people who have seen the movie, I don't think I am going to like it though.

If I am going to dislike it or not, I am happy the studios can't cash-in from this franchise anymore. When Christopher Tolkien kicks the bucket, and if the Tolkien-family sells the filming rights of Silmarillion, I hope it would be made as a tv-series and certainly not by Peter Jackson. The tone in his Middle-Earth-movies wouldn't be appropriate for it in my opinion.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 11, 2014)

Well, just came back from seeing it.

It's a weird feeling. This was the last time I went to watch a Middle-Earth film in a movie theater. Well, at least by Peter Jackson. It's not exactly an end of an era, because childhood gave way to adulthood already some years ago. But it's nostalgic enough to not to want to make any deeper analysis.

So all I'll say is that yeah, it was the best out of the three. I suppose, mostly because PJ had almost entire freedom to do all the action stuff and the emotional scenes he so likes. He also had almost complete freedom from any pre-existing story structure. The whole movie was just basically one big battle. It didn't feel too long or too tiresome, though. Actually it all flowed pretty well. The ending was neatly done too, no ending fatigue there.

It was a pretty generic fantasy movie, though. The only moment I felt like I was back in the story of the LotR movies was in the very very end. 
*Spoiler*: __ 



The final scene literally transits into the opening scene of Fellowship, where Gandalf comes to see Bilbo.




Anyway. Now I'm really looking towards all the gifted fan editors trimming these movies down a bit. I'd especially like to see a version where the Dol Guldur plot is edited out, and it only contains the Erebor tale itself. I feel like that would be a big improvement. Help to concentrate on what this tale is really about, and what the audience is supposed to feel about it.


----------



## gershwin (Dec 11, 2014)

For me the first Hobbit will forever remain the best in the middle earth franchise


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 11, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> That'd be fucking awesome. Sadly I heard that Christopher tolkien banned PJ from Silmarillion rights after watching Hobbit.



A stupid, false rumor. PJ never intended to tackle the Silmarillion in the first place, as he feels it would be at least seven movies and he doesn't have the time or energy for that many more big, epic movies. The Tolkien estate decided to withdraw all rights for Middle Earth movies for another fifty years for unrelated reasons, supposedly. Nothing personal against PJ, just a general distaste at the concept of this franchise being milked dry constantly.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 11, 2014)

He hates the LOTR movies, it's safe to say he's not a fan of Jackson either. If the Simil would be like the Hobbit movies then thank god Jackson never got his hands on them.


----------



## zoro (Dec 11, 2014)

I just watched the Battle of the Five Armies...


*Spoiler*: __ 



Beorn...


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 11, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> . If the Simil would be like the Hobbit movies then thank god Jackson never got his hands on them.



Amen.

I can live with Hobbit being ruined but not Silmarillion. God please no.


----------



## soulnova (Dec 12, 2014)

I actually liked it LESS than the other two movies. 

That doesn't mean that I didn't like... but I thought there could be vastly improvements to it. And yes, some scenes just didn't make any fucking sense.


*Spoiler*: __ 





Take out: 
All of Alfrid. Seriously. No reason whatsoever to keep him around, but they kept pushing into my eyes.For fuck sake, stahp. 
Thorin's crazy montage with the gold floor. It didn't have to be so long. 
Legolas battle in the tower/bridge. Cool, but it was beyond ridiculous. 
Legolas and Thranduil last scene. "Dad, I have to leave.", "Oh, you should go north. Find the Dunedain. A man named _Strider_." Me: *ROLLEYES*  "btw, You mother loved you." ... da fuk was dat.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 12, 2014)

About that weird scene at the end between Thranduil and Legolas. 

Am I imagining it, or could there, just possibly, be a sequel hook. Not now, not in a while, perhaps never. But at some point, I believe, PJ did thought about a movie about Aragorn's life before LotR. Remember the "bridge movie" that was talked about during the Guillermo del Toro era? Before it was decided we would get two Hobbit movies? 

The scene makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, unless it's PJ leaving a door open for someone making more Middle-Earth movies from the Appendixes of LotR.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 12, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Amen.
> 
> I can live with Hobbit being ruined but not Silmarillion. God please no.



A book isn't ruined because someone adapts it into a movie, you know. The book is still there. The LOTR book sales skyrocketed because of the films, so I'd say they're doing better than ever.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 12, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> A book isn't ruined because someone adapts it into a movie, you know. The book is still there. The LOTR book sales skyrocketed because of the films, so I'd say they're doing better than ever.




This is true... but it still hurts. It even hurts me to watch Hobbit constantly leeching off of LotR, a far superior movie trilogy. Watching more Tolkien books being turned into movies the good professor himself surely wouldn't like... yeah. Especially as Silmarillion was so personal and important for him. It was his life work. The product of one man's life, heart and dedication. Disrespecting that would feel like a slap on the face.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 12, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> A book isn't ruined because someone adapts it into a movie, you know. The book is still there. The LOTR book sales skyrocketed because of the films, so I'd say they're doing better than ever.



lol exactly. Not to mention that the Hobbit book sales also skyrocketed after the movies. I feel that these Hobbit movies would have been better received if the LOTR trilogy didn't exist. I honestly don't understand people who expect the Hobbit movies to be on the same level as the LOTR movies. The LOTR movies are deeper, more emotional and more intricate while the Hobbit is supposed to be a fun adventure book for children. In that respect, the Hobbit movies have succeeded (I haven't seen the latest one yet tho) because even with all its faults and fanfiction, it is indeed enjoyable (well, according to a large percentage of critics and audience).


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 12, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> A book isn't ruined because someone adapts it into a movie, you know. The book is still there. The LOTR book sales skyrocketed because of the films, so I'd say they're doing better than ever.



Who cares about book sales ? The author is dead. He doesn't have any use for money. Most importantly, as a fan of Tolkien and his books, I'd rather like to watch a movie that captured the soul of his work, rather than a cheap attempt to mimic LOTR's success.

I never criticised the liberties Jackson took with LOTR, mostly because they weren't too big of a deal, and you could clearly see that despite everything, Jackson also put his heart and soul into the movie to make great justice to Tolkien's work. Watching Hobbit is like the complete opposite. They don't care about the book, they only care about money.


----------



## Jagger (Dec 12, 2014)

I still don't know how they extended a 286 pages book into three movies.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 12, 2014)

Jagger said:


> I still don't know how they extended a 286 pages book into three movies.



By adding shitton of filler.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 12, 2014)

Hobbit's formula is

1. Feed off the fame of the LOTR trilogy

2. Homage LOTR and make people feel nostalgic
e.g Bring back LOTR characters like Frodo, Legolas, Nazgul, Gimli reference etc
Make Sauron turn into the flaming eye of LOTR
Tauriel's healing scene was like Arwen's healing scene of Frodo
etc

3. Using LOTR's memorable music, to be fair it was good music but it's more nostalgia hook

4. Tons of filler taking place of characters who need more time
e.g Legolas practically becoming one of the main characters
Tauriel and her stupid romance
Azog being alive and taking Bolg's role
Tons of time wasted on flashy action scenes
Galadriel in BOFA has a scene tying back to FOTR with Frodo
etc

See the movie tries to fall back on heavy CGI, popularity of Tolkien and LOTR movies, nostalgia and flashy action scenes. The heart of the book is gone, you can do changes to adapt a work but there is such a thing as a bad adaptation. LOTR movies had their flaws but the pros outdid the cons, Hobbit takes all those flaws and increases them 100 fold.

Beorn gets 15 seconds here in BOFA, he's mostly getting screentime in extended edition. Most of the dwarves are shafted as despite 3 movies, Jackson ignores most, in BOFA most barely get a line it seems. 

BOFA is one giant action sequence of exaggerated ninja elf combat with Legolas going mary sue(well more than usual) when he starts saving everyone and contributes to fights of other characters he had no business being near. 

This not getting into inconsistencies Jackson creates with his own LOTR. Nazgul being armored(it was in the trailor so not a spoiler) never happened in LOTR when Sauron would be stronger than Hobbit. The fact everyone knows Sauron has come back in the White Council makes one wonder why they were surprised in FOTR. In the Hobbit books it's handwaved away that Necromancer fled as Dol Guldur was bait, Gandalf did sneak into the place but in Hobbit books Necromancer was'nt so much in the scene. Gandalf in FOTR conversing with Saruman in the movie believed Sauron had died in the Second age to which Saruman had to point out his spirit survived, this is Jackson's own movies. 

Saruman is clearly evil in Hobbit. Gandalf practically closes his eyes in a "Oh crap not him" way when he learns Saruman is in Rivendell for the Council meeting. His facial expression when Saruman tries to  deny the Morgul blade and Galadriel's face of disgust towards Saruman in that same scene in AUJ make one wonder why they trusted him in the movieverse then. Gandalf spoke highly of Saruman as a friend and wizard to Frodo in FOTR movie. 

Do people enjoy seeing 20 minutes of barrel fight scene where barrels violate the laws of physics despite just being normal barrels?Why can't we have fights like Boromir's death which was'nt flashy but had an emotional and heroic weight to it?I like stylish fights too but know when to restrain such moments. Legolas' superhero moments offput the BOFA emotional impact the fights should have.

Let's not get started on things like dwarfs surfing on molten metal on top of metal without burns or that horrible golden statue scene. We did'nt need that whole Smaug chasing dwarves in mountains, he should have just gone to Laketown and then died in the 5 or 10 minutes there. It's just more padding out a book made into 3 movies of 2+ hours time. 

These movies are enjoyable if you can turn off your brain but they clearly do not understand what Hobbit is about or how to properly tie it into LOTR. The Hobbit trilogy cannot stand on it's own when it needs LOTR to hook viewers in, each movie itself is meh with some fun moments. LOTR movies could stand alone in terms of quality let alone a trilogy. 

The other Tolkien works are leagues beyond The Hobbit. Jackson will not be able to adapt characters like Feanor, Turin, Beren and Luthien etc if he can't do Hobbit well. He'll probably insert Legolas in some Second age stuff if he could I'm sure.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

^ Yeah, if you have to add filler, why not use the characters that are already in the book? Why reduce Beorn into a cameo? He had such potential and people were eager to see him. Why not expand more on other Dwarves than just Kili, Dwalin and Balin? Why systematically diss Fili? Why not show us more about the D?rin family and the Dwarven life before and after the exile? All that would have added to the central story. 

But my biggest problem with these movies is that after watching them all, looking back on the story it just all feels like a big mess. It lacked clear structure, clear driving plot, clear atmosphere, clear central idea.... when you watch FotR, you know everything around Frodo taking carrying the Ring to Mordor. Later it's a race of him trying to destroy the Ring while the others try to survive and to distract Sauron as well as possible. PJ found this very important, and excluded other material. That's why Tom Bombadil had to go. But the Hobbit? It just goes here and there, and after the last credits roll in, I'm just not sure what I watched.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 13, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Who cares about book sales ?



People who are concerned with whether or not the general population - kids especially - are reading care about book sales. To me, the fact that people are reading the Hobbit is a very good thing.






> The author is dead. He doesn't have any use for money.



His Estate still makes money off any licensed work attributed to Professor Tolkien. My post wasn't about people making money, anyway. You took a little pebble of someone else's opinion and turned it into a big steamy pile of bitch fit.




> Most importantly, as a fan of Tolkien and his books, I'd rather like to watch a movie that captured the soul of his work, rather than a cheap attempt to mimic LOTR's success.



Good for you? 



> I never criticised the liberties Jackson took with LOTR, mostly because they weren't too big of a deal, and you could clearly see that despite everything, Jackson also put his heart and soul into the movie to make great justice to Tolkien's work. Watching Hobbit is like the complete opposite. They don't care about the book, they only care about money.



At the end of the day, anything that encourages young people to pick up a book and read is a good thing. An alarming percentage of Americans never read another book after high school or college. If someone likes the Hobbit enough to get the book version and read it, that's a net gain for humanity.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

^ It's true that PJ has made a lot of people read Tolkien. I'm one example, and these days I'm a book fan first and foremost, while I'm critical of PJ's movies. So there's always that.

edit:

Why didn't I see this before:

[YOUTUBE]jaRoqslM4W0[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 13, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> People who are concerned with whether or not the general population - kids especially - are reading care about book sales. To me, the fact that people are reading the Hobbit is a very good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



A movie encouraging people to read a book is a good thing, but that aspect of it has nothing to do with the movie itself. So again, are you saying that a movie can be utter shit but it gets a pass because "it helps humanity" in some way ? 

Yeeeaaaah no.

By doing that, you are taking a step back in the art of film making.


----------



## Stein (Dec 13, 2014)

The Galadriel part was uploaded to YouTube.

*Spoiler*: __ 



[YOUTUBE]_mIw1FpUNDQ[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## masamune1 (Dec 13, 2014)

Amanda said:


> ^ It's true that PJ has made a lot of people read Tolkien. I'm one example, and these days I'm a book fan first and foremost, while I'm critical of PJ's movies. So there's always that.
> 
> edit:
> 
> ...



That.

Was.

AWESOME.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Here is my stance on it all (not that it matters):

My first look into LotR was with the books. I made it through the first 2 mostly because I hate starting something and not finishing them and never even finished the third. They are tedious, dull and extremely boring. The writing itself is good, but the actual material is not even something I would think they would want to make into movies. 

My next effort was to watch the movies to try and gain more of an appreciation for the work since I read a ton of fantasy and these are considered some of the best. I thought that if maybe I saw the characters come to life and such it would peak my interest. Well, I watched the first 2 movies and while they were definitely more interesting than the books, they still didn't really do anything for me. 

Last was trying the Hobbit movies. I watched the first one and actually enjoyed it quite a bit though the 2nd one I thought became boring again as well. Gave me similar feelings to watching LotR movies. But, this has gotten me interested in checking out the book at some point.

That was all kind of long but I guess my point is, I don't really understand the hatred of things done with these movies. Why would they try and stay faithful to material that is boring anyway? The idea here (at least I would think) would be to add new life into it and attract new people and I feel like it has accomplished that. As someone pointed out, books sales are through the roof. If you are a fan of the book be a fan of the book. Movies aren't books. Never will be.


More on topic I think the trailers for this were well done. Got me excited for the 3rd despite not liking the 2nd. Even my wife has some interest and she wanted nothing to do with the first 2.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Why would they try and stay faithful to material that is boring anyway?




Why would you try to make a movie about a book you don't even like? Leave it to a director who likes the story in the first place. 

Because if you don't get the story and its appeal, you're doomed to fail before you even start. You lack the spark, and without the spark, there's nothing. Just a stale, forced performance that probably lacks coherency. Just like the Hobbit films, which don't know what to be.

Not to mention, making a movie you aren't interested in is a massive waste of time, money and effort on your part. PJ could have used these years on other projects instead, but apparently he felt obliged for New Zealand or whatever to make these - quite against his original intention, where some other director was to take the helm.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Why would you try to make a movie about a book you don't even like? Leave it to a director who likes the story in the first place.



Good point. 

I would say the answer (if you are like me) is that there are good things about it and you feel you can improve them and make it popular to a wider audience. So if you have a solid base to start from (fans and story both) but can try and make it even more entertaining through a different medium, maybe you do that?

I can't speak for PJ himself, but I can understand why liberties would be taken with the source material. It is very dry and that isn't really what you want in a movie that is supposed to be an "epic".


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I would say the answer (if you are like me) is that there are good things about it and you feel you can improve them and make it popular to a wider audience.




That's quite disrespectful to the original author. Don't try to take somebody else's work and purposefully twists it into something it's not. That would be something between theft and vandalism. 

And in this case we're talking about J.R.R.Tolkien. He doesn't need "improving" or "making it popular", no matter how little you yourself liked his books. 

The man is rightfully considered a literary legend, one of the corner stones of modern popular fiction, and was ranked by The Times as the 6th most important British author post-1945. His chief novel, Lord of the Rings, is the 2nd best selling novel in the entire history of literature, and the Hobbit is the 6th best selling. The audience has read his books for 70 years, long before any of these movies. And yes, while the movies gained some more readers, the readership was already wide and vivid before them. 

Who is some Peter Jackson, or anyone, to "improve" or "popularize" him? If you don't like Shakespeare, you don't try to "improve" him either, you just say "Sorry but it's not my cup of tea" and bow out.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Amanda said:


> That's quite disrespectful to the original author. Don't try to take somebody else's work and purposefully twists it into something it's not. That would be something between theft and vandalism.



It basically happens all of the time when books are converted into some other medium. And I didn't say turn it into something it's not. I said make it more interesting. It could still have the general ideas. 



> And in this case we're talking about J.R.R.Tolkien. He doesn't need "improving" or "making it popular", no matter how little you yourself liked his books.



You are not the one making the movie, so neither you or I decides what needs improving. I think it needs improving if you want to make it a movie, you don't. Both just opinions. 



> The man is rightfully considered a literary legend



Your opinion. He is definitely someone who inspired new authors and for that, he deserves tons of credit. But there are a lot of authors who have come after him who have made far more interesting works who aren't considered legends. Anyway, that is getting off topic. 



> Who is some Peter Jackson, or anyone, to "improve" or "popularize" him?



What exactly is your point?


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

My point is that you used your subjective view ("damn this is boring") to justify purposefully changing someone else's work, while I used objective numbers (he is one of the most read authors in the history of literary) to prove that his work doesn't need changing, and is good just the way it is. 

(Not to mention again that trying to change someone else's work just because you didn't like the original is still disrespectful and not worthy of any author, be he the one adapted or doing the adaptation.)

Notice that this is different question from the changes one has to make to adapt a story from one medium to another. The the one doing the adapting thinks the original story is neat, and wants to retell it with different medium, in this case a movie. But we're talking about someone thinking the story isn't worth it, and trying to rewrite it into a practically new story, as has happened with the Hobbit movies.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 13, 2014)

> Your opinion.



lol that isn't an opinion. He IS considered a literary legend.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> lol that isn't an opinion. He IS considered a literary legend.



Yes, but being considered that is still just opinions, even if the opinions of a lot of people.

In any case, this is all getting way off topic.

I for one think the first Hobbit movie is better than anything LotR. This third one looks to be the best so far though I haven't seen it yet. And I will definitely read the book now.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Yes, but being considered that is still just opinions, even if the opinions of a lot of people.




Lord of the Rings being the second most best selling novel in history isn't "just an opinion", though. It's numbers.

Unless you want to say the millions and millions of people through the decades and around the world who have loved Tolkien's books are doing so out of "an opinion" too... in which case I say the opinion of millions of people outweigh yours: nope, Tolkien did something very very right and doesn't need anyone's help to improve or correct his work. 



Cyphon said:


> I for one think the first Hobbit movie is better than anything LotR. This third one looks to be the best so far though I haven't seen it yet. And I will definitely read the book now.




I found the third movie to be the most coherent and inspired of the Hobbit trilogy. So yeah, I enjoyed watching it the best in that series.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 13, 2014)

It was okay. Leaning towards the good side of okay, but some pretty bland & predictable stuff too.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Lord of the Rings being the second most best selling novel in history isn't "just an opinion", though. It's numbers.



I am not talking numbers. I am talking about labeling someone a legend. It is just an opinion. I never said he didn't sell books.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> I am not talking numbers. I am talking about labeling someone a legend. It is just an opinion. I never said he didn't sell books.




If millions of people love someone's books, and many, many people call him a legend... that in itself makes him a legend, and makes him a well beloved author. 

Because that's exactly what a legend is. Someone whose name is known to many and held by them in high esteem. So you don't acknowledge that legend? It means that you're left out of the Tolkien party, not that the Tolkien party isn't going out there, like it has been for 70 years.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Amanda said:


> If millions of people love someone's books, and many, many people call him a legend... that in itself makes him a legend, and makes him a well beloved author.



Label him what you will. It isn't really relevant to the argument of trying to improve on his story.

You know who else is loved by millions, sold tons of books, has a huge movie series and a huge following? Stephanie Myers of the famed Twilight Saga. Does that mean someone couldn't or shouldn't try to improve on her shitty work? Doubt it. 

Once again though, that isn't really sticking with the topic. 

I just think the complaints here are way overblown.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 13, 2014)

No, they're not really when Jackson does not improve very much and actually ruins the source material with his own fanfiction. If you enjoy flashy things and do not give a damn for actual quality then sure, enjoy movies made for people with attention span of juevenille gnats suffering from ADHD to boot.

Improvement would be him giving the dwarves more than in the books, focusing on the group more, not making Legolas a main character with more time than certain main characters, Tauriel added for a crappy romance when she could have been something more, not wasting time to drag Smaug's demise so he can do it by the next movie, not contradicting things he established in his own movies, more time on Alfrid(seriously?Did we need that?) etc. 

How do things like barrel fight scenes improve the source material?How does shafting Beorn improve the source material?How does cutting down Smaug's iconic speech into bits spread out and even changing it with improve the original scene?

Something like us starting out in FOTR movie during the Frodo/Bilbo scene in AUJ is a good improvement and way to tie back to the original movies. Bilbo was writing his book then, it's perfect as a way to start off Hobbit as Bilbo remembers as he writes. 

If more improvements were like that then it would be more forgiveable.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 13, 2014)

@ Cyphon

The Twilight series not only has millions of fans, it also has millions of haters. There are plenty of people criticising the work, and the author is not in general considered to be an important firgure of world literature. Tolkien only has random haters and nay sayers against a sea of lovers and admirers, so the comparison doesn't work. 

And even if it did, it still doesn't mean that someone had the right to come and take Mrs. Meyers' work and meddle with it against her will and intention. True, Tolkien is no longer here to protests against PJ, but his son Christopher is, and it's well known how Chris feels about what his father's legacy is used for.

Anyway, I'm tired of the topic, so let's agree to disagree.

@ Tranquil Fury

Amen


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 13, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> A movie encouraging people to read a book is a good thing, but that aspect of it has nothing to do with the movie itself. So again, are you saying that a movie can be utter shit but it gets a pass because "it helps humanity" in some way ?
> 
> Yeeeaaaah no.
> 
> By doing that, you are taking a step back in the art of film making.




Clearly, these movies aren't "utter shit" or they'd have failed financially. They've done very well, and are well regarded by most reviewers who can appreciate them for what they are and not what they want them to be. The minority who have a stick up their asses make comments like yours. You're young, so maybe you still have an obscene amount of misplaced passion and butthurt. Ten years down the line you'll probably laugh at how fucking angry these movies make you, if you grow up much.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 13, 2014)

Yeah Twilight is'nt shit because it's good financially. Starwars Prequels also made good money, Revenge of the Sith made 880 million globally but most everyone hates them.

Incidently many compared Hobbit to LOTR's prequels and it even fits

Episode I: Hidden threat/menace and hero journey
Episode 2: Stupid lovestory with #action chick
Episode 3: Darker and edgier, hero going bad and action chick weakens

Oh and bad guy of previous movie dying early into first half hour or so of third movie. We just replace lava with ice at one point. Radagast is totally Jar Jar as well.

Now these Hobbit movies are still watchable if you enjoy flash and stylish fighting styles. They have entertainment value but complaints should'nt be ignored, people have a right to show their dislike of things Jackson has done as much as those who love Jackson's Hobbits have theirs.


----------



## Cyphon (Dec 13, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> If you enjoy flashy things and do not give a damn for actual quality then sure, enjoy movies made for people with attention span of juevenille gnats suffering from ADHD to boot.



Well, it is certainly better than watching paint dry 

Keep in mind here, I am talking LotR because I haven't read Hobbit yet. I thought the movies actually improved on the books in LotR case.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 13, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> Clearly, these movies aren't "utter shit" or they'd have failed financially. They've done very well, and are well regarded by most reviewers who can appreciate them for what they are and not what they want them to be. The minority who have a stick up their asses make comments like yours. You're young, so maybe you still have an obscene amount of misplaced passion and butthurt. Ten years down the line you'll probably laugh at how fucking angry these movies make you, if you grow up much.



>Getting so mad over this to the point of resorting to personal insults.
> Says I need to grow up



I bet all the anger management sessions your mom paid for you didn't turn out well eh ?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 13, 2014)

Cyphon said:


> Well, it is certainly better than watching paint dry
> 
> Keep in mind here, I am talking LotR because I haven't read Hobbit yet. I thought the movies actually improved on the books in LotR case.



LOTR are some of my fav movies. I watch them once a year or two. They had flaws too but then you had moments like YOU SHALL NOT PASS, Sam carrying Frodo, Sam following Frodo at the end of FOTR, Boromir's sacrifice etc which were iconic and awesome.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 14, 2014)

Enjoyed the first part of the film, especially the fight between Galadriel and Sauron. She makes Gandalf and Radagast look like chumps and they're supposed to be Maia, especially Radagast who doesn't have any fighting abilities whatsoever whilst Galadriel is just a elf. Wouldn't be surprised if she could beat Sauron 1 v 1.


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 14, 2014)

Wizards and elves and ghosts and dwarves and orcs and magic and fighting!


----------



## Jake CENA (Dec 14, 2014)

The Hobbit 3 is a 10/10 movie

Fuck you all


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> Enjoyed the first part of the film, especially the fight between Galadriel and Sauron. She makes Gandalf and Radagast look like chumps and they're supposed to be Maia, especially Radagast who doesn't have any fighting abilities whatsoever whilst Galadriel is just a elf. Wouldn't be surprised if she could beat Sauron 1 v 1.




In FotR book it was said the two are constantly locked in some sort of spiritual struggle in the unseen world, in which Galadriel can see Sauron and his thoughts, but despite his attempts, Sauron can't (yet) see Galadriel's thoughts. It's also implied that if she got the Ring, she would beat him. 

Of course, she doesn't have the armies to match his.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

^ I recall Tolkien listing L?thien, F?anor and Galadriel as the three strongest Eldas. Out of them L?thien is a special case, as she's half-Maia.

It's a bit tricky to rank Sauron, as his power went up and down depending on the era and circumstances.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 14, 2014)

I was going to repost after finding the quotes but yes. Galadriel is indeed in the top tier elves even by First Age. She was also the wisest elf as per Tolkien. She can match Maia like the top tier elves can, would definately have defended her queendom from the Balrog if it came her way.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Heh, it helps her wisdom that she outlived the other Noldorin royalty and nobility by several thousands years, thanks to surviving First Age.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 14, 2014)

I sort of wanted Christopher Lee to do more not just because he was shafted in ROTK but because he's a huge Tolkien fan himself. Nice to see Galadriel show her stuff though.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 14, 2014)

I would love to see Beren and Luthien's tale adapted in capable hands but alas that would never happen. I don't think this is the end of Middle Earth movies, Hollywood loves to milk things dry instead of leaving them be. I'd prefer they do one set in the 4th age if they absolutely must, that way they could get away with whatever they wanted.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

It's kinda insane though that we got a scene where Gandalf, Saruman, Radagast, Galadriel and Elrond join forces to kick the asses of the nine Nazg?l, only for Sauron to show up and there to be a brief Sauron vs Galadriel duel. And I thought the White Council scene in Unexpected Journey was pure fanservice.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 14, 2014)

Radagast is clearly extended edition in this movie, most of his stuff and Beorn's is extended edition. Can't give Beorn screentime, need to have Legolas in more shots being a superhero.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

I'd love to see the Great Tales of the First Age adapted. Lay of Leithian, Narn i Ch?n H?rin, the Fall of Gondolin and the Voyage of E?rendil. Would make for a great series. But I'd want the Tolkien estate to collaborate and make sure it's loyal in style and narrative.

(Some part of me has always wanted to see an animated series about the Silmarillion. Somehow it feels such approach could capture it all better.)


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 14, 2014)

Its funny how Silmarillion is just one book but it can cover an entire season or two of a TV series and Hobbit is just the opposite. Hell, if you expand on all the stuff, you can go on forever like GOT. There is so much in it.

But man, I'd kill to see that scene where Fingolfin looks around the battlefield after their defeat, seeing nothing but corpses and ashes, hopping on his horse and riding to Mordor to challenge Melkor. It is one of my favorite moments in all fiction, and is certainly an iconic moment leading to an iconic fight in Silmarillion.

Fall of Gondolin is a stand alone movie material by itself. Its huge. Gothmog vs Ecthelion in the town square. What an epic battle it must have been.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> But man, I'd kill to see that scene where Fingolfin looks around the battlefield after their defeat, seeing nothing but corpses and ashes, hopping on his horse and riding to Mordor to challenge Melkor. It is one of my favorite moments in all fiction, and is certainly an iconic moment leading to an iconic fight in Silmarillion...







[YOUTUBE]3aB6CPyO0Ww[/YOUTUBE]

(Psst, I assume you meant to say "to Angband" instead of "to Mordor". )


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Dec 14, 2014)

^ Oh yeah Angband. Also that song 

My favorite from that album is Mirror Mirror though


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 14, 2014)

Amanda said:


> In FotR book it was said the two are constantly locked in some sort of spiritual struggle in the unseen world, in which Galadriel can see Sauron and his thoughts, but despite his attempts, Sauron can't (yet) see Galadriel's thoughts. It's also implied that if she got the Ring, she would beat him.
> 
> Of course, she doesn't have the armies to match his.



Yeah I was reading that on her Wikipedia entry  Since I ain't a book reader. I'm guessing the scene in this film was the one where it was described that she soloed the place "and laid its pits bare" or something like that. She's the boss  

I'm just surprised that she can go against a Maia when the supposed hierarchy is Valar > Maia > everything else. I read the whole of Melkor's backstory and he apparently had his work cut out against a top elf as well but Melkor won at the end. Funny because he nearly died against some spider  (from what I read on the LOTR wikia)


----------



## Amanda (Dec 14, 2014)

^ The Maiar vary greatly in strength. Some of them are almost as strong as the Valar (the "gods" or "archangels"), some of them are closer to what you'd imagine a woodland nymph or some other nature spirit to be. 

In turn, some of the Elves were either born or grew to be significantly strong.

Plus in this verse, it's possible to grant part of your power to someone else, or vice versa, to receive power from external sources. Typical example is the Witch-King of Angmar, who gets a power-up from Sauron somewhere between Fellowship of the Ring and Return of the King. The likes of Galadriel and F?anor were born strong, true, but they also benefited from being born in Valinor, the Undying Lands. It's made clear that living there increases your might - in fact it somehow changes your entire being.


----------



## Quwrof Wrlccywrlir (Dec 14, 2014)

it was my first time watching through imax hfr. the motions were so crisp, at times it felt like i was actually there


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 14, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> Yeah I was reading that on her Wikipedia entry  Since I ain't a book reader. I'm guessing the scene in this film was the one where it was described that she soloed the place "and laid its pits bare" or something like that. She's the boss
> 
> I'm just surprised that she can go against a Maia when the supposed hierarchy is Valar > Maia > everything else. I read the whole of Melkor's backstory and he apparently had his work cut out against a top elf as well but Melkor won at the end. Funny because he nearly died against some spider  (from what I read on the LOTR wikia)



Some First age elves could fight Balrogs albeit to the death. Sauron in his depowered state is also fair game to a Galadriel going all out and exhausting herself not factoring her ring of power that may or may not make her more powerful. 

Melkor was weakened significantly from pouring his power into creating dragons, corrupting beings and other such. At his prime he could fight all the Valar at once. He did'nt die against a spider, that Spider was either the embodiment of primordial darkness or a Maia amped on the trees whose fruits became the sun and moon plus he was also very much weakened. He also did'nt die, his army of Balrogs chased her off.

Melkor and Sauron(other great spirits) can't die, they can at worst be reduced to helpless spirits who can't do anything. Happened to Melkor at the end of First Age and happened to Sauron when his Ring was destroyed.


----------



## x5exotic (Dec 15, 2014)

Smaug is such a retard.... but he gets praise because that shit actor voiced him.


I mean they fool him with such cartoonish tricks, and survive in a convenient way it takes away from the whole movie.

Evangeline Lilly filler was actually more enjoyable that the main goddamn villain's climax.


----------



## Bender (Dec 16, 2014)

@Amanda

Meh @ that pic of Fingolfin vs Morgoth.. Nowhere in book it sat he be a le to parry blows. Also aint indicate dude be blondie. 

Here my fav Fingolfin vs Morgoth pic



EDIT:

@ theater

Only 5-10 min till movie starts.


----------



## strongarm85 (Dec 16, 2014)

I saw the battle of 5 atimes yesterday. It was really good, but they completely glossed over some of the details of the battle.


*Spoiler*: __ 



Those damn eagles./spoiler]


----------



## dream (Dec 16, 2014)

I found the movie to be pretty mediocre.  Only two action scenes in the movie even made me excited.  One is everything with Smaug in the beginning and the other is the fight in Dol Guldur.  Everything else was pretty much a snore-fest for me. :/

There is no moment that even comes close to Rohan's arrival in Return of the King.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 17, 2014)

I must say... this was a complete snorefest.

The "battle of five armies" felt more like a little skirmish.

And honestly, it didn't seem like there was much going on in the plot in general

I'd recommend anyone to walk out of the theatre once the Smaug scene ends, because that's the most entertainment you're going to get.

On a side note, lol the stubborn attempts at making the Tauriel romance meaningful.


----------



## dream (Dec 17, 2014)

Luiz said:


> On a side note, lol the stubborn attempts at making the Tauriel romance meaningful.



What the fuck was PJ thinking when he added that?


----------



## Nemesis (Dec 17, 2014)

Luiz said:


> On a side note, lol the stubborn attempts at making the Tauriel romance meaningful.



What would you expect when you take a book with less in it than the first half of the fellowship.  Had forced PJ love and friction in movies and try to turn a kids novel into something for grownups.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2014)

Book characters mostly shafted, Legolas getting too much screentime and being important to the story no less, Bilbo not contributing to Smaug's defeat, characters with endings not resolved, Tauriel confirmed for waste of space(even her girl powah purpose goes down the drain lolweak), Dain making Gimli's comic relief look serious, Thranduil still neutered(him wanting the necklace because it belongs to his wife from side material to this movie is vaguely mentioned leaving movie fans clueless), Galadriel sue, Christopher lee again shafted, Thorin's heel turn being done in a cheesy and stupid manner(it's also so in your face as they have him hear words the audience heard 2 minutes ago to him), removing most of Thorin's final speech, Radagast confirmed for waste of space, Alfrid taking Radagast's place as Jar Jar V2, more fights that are all style no substance etc.

I enjoyed Bard's character and liked the changes to keep him more everyman than become King. I liked the opening sequence pre title and the return to Shire that ties back well to LOTR. I enjoyed the Thorin/Bilbo friendship moments and maybe some others.

I give it 6 to 7.5/10 with the high end rating being generous.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 17, 2014)

Man, was Thorin's development lazy.

He basically walked up to them like "Sorry, guys. I went kinda cray cray but I just had a flashback storm and I'm good now."


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2014)

Bender said:


> @Amanda
> 
> Meh @ that pic of Fingolfin vs Morgoth.. Nowhere in book it sat he be a le to parry blows. Also aint indicate dude be blondie.
> 
> Here my fav Fingolfin vs Morgoth pic




The Morgoth vs Fingolfin duel must be the most illustrated moment in the legendarium. 

That's a great image, too. I chose the earlier one for being the iconic John Howe illustration, as inaccurate as it is. 



Bender said:


> EDIT:
> 
> @ theater
> 
> Only 5-10 min till movie starts.




So how did you like it?



Dream said:


> There is no moment that even comes close to Rohan's arrival in Return of the King.


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2014)

7.5 out  of 10


Feel for PJ not being able to make The Hobbit 2 films and instead 3.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 17, 2014)

Jackson wanted 3 films.


----------



## TGM (Dec 17, 2014)

So yeah, just watched *The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies*, and my issues with it are the same as the last Harry Potter movie. It's just an exhausting 2 and a half hour long climax to the previous, vastly superior movie, and pretty much acts as absolute proof that there was no reason that these movies should've been split into three.

My full review:


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2014)

It's so frustrating to know we were supposed to get 2 movies, and then for no reason they decided to split it into 3. Sure, many of the problems would have remained, but I believe the overall product would have been far better with 2 movies.

Added frustration for the fact that almost everyone knew immediately it would be a bad idea. Did PJ have too much power on his production, or rather, has he grown too important in his business and his country's film making to listen to people?


----------



## Bender (Dec 17, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Jackson wanted 3 films.



Jackson was pacing back and forth about it. 



He had a revelation about it that made him rethink the decision. Try again know-it-all. 

@Amanda

Jackson thought it would be squeezing a shitload of content into it. Shit, felt like 50 minutes going from fleeing Azog to ending up in the Elf woods part in beginning of Desolation of Smaug. Reading this I suppose I can agree with Jackson's rationale on "The Hobbit" being three films instead of two:





> Hypable attended The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug press day during which director Peter Jackson explained the need to cut the story into three films.
> 
> Those who’ve followed the production of the series know that plans for The Hobbit originally called for two movies, but last year Warner Bros. announced it would be a three-parter.
> 
> ...


----------



## Amanda (Dec 17, 2014)

^ The problem with that is that despite the reasoning, in practice it simply didn't work. There wasn't enough material, and so it felt stretched out. This in turn made the story feel shallow.

And for me, the Hobbit always has had this pretty natural 2 part structure: the journey to the region of the mountain, and the politics and the drama in the region of the mountain.


----------



## Karasu (Dec 17, 2014)

Better than Desolation, but that's not difficult.



Amanda said:


> ^ The problem with that is that despite the reasoning, in practice it simply didn't work. There wasn't enough material, and so it felt stretched out. This in turn made the story feel shallow.
> 
> And for me, the Hobbit always has had this pretty natural 2 part structure: the journey to the region of the mountain, and the politics and the drama in the region of the mountain.



Two would've been perfect for this it seems.


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 18, 2014)

And if only Guillermo Del Toro would have had stayed as director, we could have had a different take on Middle-Earth on style, tone and look. And kiddie stuff from the book and the violence would also have been better balanced I believe.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Black Sun said:


> Two would've been perfect for this it seems.




You can still notice the original breaking point in the middle of DOS. 

The emotional confrontation with Thranduil, Bilbo growing to be the hero of the Company, the big barrel escape sequence where Kili is injured, Tauriel running after them, and finally them seeing their first glimpse of the Mountain was the original ending. 

Then we get into this whole new sequence where we're introduced to new characters and their dynamics. That was the original beginning of the movie 2.



Nuuskis said:


> And if only Guillermo Del Toro would have had stayed as director, we could have had a different take on Middle-Earth on style, tone and look. And kiddie stuff from the book and the violence would also have been better balanced I believe.




GDT. The things we might have had. It will haunt me to my grave.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2014)

The problem was that for all the reasoning of needing 3 movies(cash is the true answer) they basically added their own content and removed content that in the book. So this whole "not enough movies with 2" was always hilarious. Nevermind that we saw how much Jackson added ended up being relevant by the time of BOFA(Tauriel ended up a waste of space and the romance was crappily done with like 2 or 3 scenes in the whole movie, Alfrid was a waste of space for comedy humor, Radagast does almost nothing here etc). Hobbit is'nt LOTR either, it's in the sameverse but different type of story, trying to make it LOTR or basically overdoing the connections was another issue. I also did not want scenes to resemble those from LOTR e.g Tauriel healing a Morgul bladed weapon scene is similar to Frodo seeing Arwen when he was poisoned by one via spirit world. It was fine to prologue Hobbit via Shire scene from FOTR and even end the trilogy on that note but sometimes less is better.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 18, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Some First age elves could fight Balrogs albeit to the death. Sauron in his depowered state is also fair game to a Galadriel going all out and exhausting herself not factoring her ring of power that may or may not make her more powerful.
> 
> Melkor was weakened significantly from pouring his power into creating dragons, corrupting beings and other such. At his prime he could fight all the Valar at once. He did'nt die against a spider, that Spider was either the embodiment of primordial darkness or a Maia amped on the trees whose fruits became the sun and moon plus he was also very much weakened. He also did'nt die, his army of Balrogs chased her off.
> 
> Melkor and Sauron(other great spirits) can't die, they can at worst be reduced to helpless spirits who can't do anything. Happened to Melkor at the end of First Age and happened to Sauron when his Ring was destroyed.



Is it possible to adapt Melkor's story instead of Sauron's? So like...we get to see Melkor's beginning and reign etc plus his final battle where he fought the Valar with the dragons.

Because when I was reading his wiki entry (complete, and again, a non-book reader) I read everything from Eru...the songs....then Melkor's story etc and it was fascinating with all the battles he had, then he sways Sauron etc

Is his story and heroes possible to adapt in a film?


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> Is it possible to adapt Melkor's story instead of Sauron's? So like...we get to see Melkor's beginning and reign etc plus his final battle where he fought the Valar with the dragons.




Melkor and Sauron are interesting characters in that regard too that their personal involvement is the carrying plot thread that connects the whole vast Legendarium. Melkor/Morgoth moves the plot from the creation mythos until the end of the First Age, and Sauron moves it from there on. 

To adapt all of Melkor's story would be quite a challenge, as it's so long. It would also be a story centered around the villain, which would be an interesting approach, though a difficult one. You can theoretically make a story about Sauron where he at least begins as a sympathetic character, but it's more troublesome with Melkor, who's an ok guy in the very very beginning, and from then on he's basically just a self-centered, jealous egoist who can't let others have nice things.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2014)

They don't have the rights to that material, at best they've given mentions to Morgoth/Melkor in FOTR(Legolas calling the Balrog a minion of Morgoth and Gandalf calling the Balrog a Flame of Udun), TT(Gandalf saying he struck down the Balrog of Morgoth plus Galadriel calling Sauron a servant of Morgoth in BOFA. Radgast mentions Ungoliath in AUJ in references to the spiders of Mirkwood being her descendants/spawn similar to Shelob. Aragorn in FOTR references Beren and Luthien to Frodo. Gandalf referencing "higher powers" to Frodo in FOTR which seem a wink to Valar. Gandalf also referencing 2 blue wizards. But that's it.

They would need like 6-12 movies for the entire Tolkienverse of Silmarilion and other material to fully do justice to the material.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 18, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Melkor and Sauron are interesting characters in that regard too that their personal involvement is the carrying plot thread that connects the whole vast Legendarium. Melkor/Morgoth moves the plot from the creation mythos until the end of the First Age, and Sauron moves it from there on.
> 
> To adapt all of Melkor's story would be quite a challenge, as it's so long. It would also be a story centered around the villain, which would be an interesting approach, though a difficult one. You can theoretically make a story about Sauron where he at least begins as a sympathetic character, but it's more troublesome with Melkor, who's an ok guy in the very very beginning, and from then on he's basically just a self-centered, jealous egoist who can't let others have nice things.



Ah...so it is possible and from what you said "it is long", this is a good thing right? Because there's much *more material* than the Hobbit where it seems to have gained criticism from the lack of it, so no filler shit basically.

And yeah...I like Melkor more than Sauron for some reason after reading his stuff. It seems more "epic" in scale and interesting.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2014)

Oh and Hobbit trilogy for all it's connection to LOTR causes a gaping plot hole about Sauron, in the book Necromancer flees because it was part of his plan to see White Council coming and then goes to Mordor where his real army is being built. Here they clearly know he's alive, see him, fight him and even know what happens to him after the fight. 

Go watch Gandalf and Saruman's conversation about Sauron in FOTR again and see why this is an issue.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 18, 2014)

Well First Age was closer to the European myths Tolkien adapted from. Everything was at peak but gradually decayed in power and glory till Third age. Sauron, Galadriel, Elrond, Balrog and some others are remnants of that age hence why they're so insanely powerful compared to everything else not Istari.

Sauron was more manipulator than even his master Melkor, his planning helped Melkor a lot. He was also initially good but his desire to bring order lead to his corruption. Melkor is more force of nature being the strongest Valar and embodiment of evil/source of evil in Middle Earth.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> Ah...so it is possible and from what you said "it is long", this is a good thing right? Because there's much *more material* than the Hobbit where it seems to have gained criticism.




Adapting Melkor's story is the same as adapting the Silmarillion. Which is an often debated question in the fandom. 

I don't know how much you know, but basically it's this huge collection of various stories that are more or less connected together by history, geography and some shared characters. So yeah, even if the book itself doesn't look that big on the shelf (as the stories are told in very brief, compact prose), it's full of material to adapt. Hundreds of characters, dozens of stories. Like a collection of the Greek myths, or the Icelandic Sagas.

However, the problem for any adaptation is that the film rights have never been sold. They're hold tightly by the Tolkien estate. And the estate has disliked the Tolkien filmatizations this far, so it's unlikely they will let go of those rights in any immediate future.



Pocalypse said:


> And yeah...I like Melkor more than Sauron for some reason after reading his stuff. It seems more "epic" in scale and interesting.



Well, the general curve of epicness in Middle-Earth is that the earlier in history it happened, the more epic (and magical) it was. The later it happened, the lesser the scale, and more mundane the participants. 

The earliest stories involve just beings resembling gods, doing their godly business such as destroying continents while fighting. Then at the end tail we have LotR, where it's mostly humans versus Orcs, with the more magical beings such as Sauron and the Elves being lonesome left-overs from the mythical past.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 18, 2014)

Cheers for the info Amanda. I got it now. Just wanted to see if it was indeed possible to adapt if the rights were given.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

^ It's possible, but you need to decide which characters you concentrate on, and which stories you adapt. Because filming it all would be like filming the Bible from the Genesis till the Apocalypse.  

I think it would work best as a tv series in the style of GoT. However, you'd need an insane budget, one that might be too big for tv. So they would probably adapt it as a movie series, and in the process would need to concentrate on just some section of it. Such as the stories that happen during the First Age in Beleriand (as opposed to the stories that happen before the First Age in the Undying Lands, or the stories that happen afterwards in the Second Age in N?menor and Middle-Earth.)


----------



## Zhen Chan (Dec 18, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> They don't have the rights to that material, at best they've given mentions to Morgoth/Melkor in FOTR(Legolas calling the Balrog a minion of Morgoth and Gandalf calling the Balrog a Flame of Udun), TT(Gandalf saying he struck down the Balrog of Morgoth plus Galadriel calling Sauron a servant of Morgoth in BOFA. Radgast mentions Ungoliath in AUJ in references to the spiders of Mirkwood being her descendants/spawn similar to Shelob. Aragorn in FOTR references Beren and Luthien to Frodo. Gandalf referencing "higher powers" to Frodo in FOTR which seem a wink to Valar. Gandalf also referencing 2 blue wizards. But that's it.
> 
> They would need like 6-12 movies for the entire Tolkienverse of Silmarilion and other material to fully do justice to the material.



They really wouldn't since only 3 or so of ther stories arent boring enough to promote suicide.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 18, 2014)

Amanda said:


> ^ It's possible, but you need to decide which *characters* you concentrate on, and which *stories* you adapt. Because filming it all would be like filming the Bible from the Genesis till the Apocalypse.
> 
> I think it would work best as a tv series in the style of GoT. However, you'd need an insane budget, one that might be too big for tv. So they would probably adapt it as a movie series, and in the process would need to concentrate on just some section of it. Such as the stories that happen during the First Age in Beleriand (as opposed to the stories that happen before the First Age in the Undying Lands, or the stories that happen afterwards in the Second Age in N?menor and Middle-Earth.)



The one with Melkor in it. 
The ones where Melkor does shit.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

Zhen Chan said:


> They really wouldn't since only 3 or so of ther stories arent boring enough to promote suicide.




Silly, the stories aren't boring, but the saga-like form isn't for everyone. The movie format would open the stories and the characters to many such who who haven't gotten the charm of the legends.



Pocalypse said:


> The one with Melkor in it.
> The ones where Melkor does shit.




That would be.... everything.  

Or as  put it:









(The "black spot" is a reference to the prophecy that Melkor will return at the end of time to wage a war with the Valar again. This world will be destroyed in that battle, and a new one will be then made.)


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2014)

Until Christopher Tolkien and Peter Jackson are able to kiss and become BFF's yeah, ya might as well just dream of the idea of The Silmarillion.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 18, 2014)

Nuuskis said:


> And if only Guillermo Del Toro would have had stayed as director, we could have had a different take on Middle-Earth on style, tone and look. And kiddie stuff from the book and the violence would also have been better balanced I believe.



And it could have been even worse than these movies. Not sure what people's fascination with Del Toro is, aside from Pan's Labyrinth, he hasn't directed anything that can even be remotely put on the same level as the LOTR trilogy. The obvious choice would be to have the same director that is familiar with the material and who directed the LOTR masterpiece at the helm of the Hobbit. Unfortunately, it didn't work out so well as these moves are decent at best (still haven't seen the latest one yet though). What Del Toro really brings to the table is in the form of visual splendor but Jackson is already a master of this and the Hobbit has already been lauded in this department. Story and pacing wise, I highly doubt Del Toro would have done anything better but I guess we'll never know.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 18, 2014)

^ I think it's mostly a question of Del Toro bringing in some new blood, innovation and excitement. His vision would have been different, but it would have been interesting to see. Another take on Middle-Earth. 



Bender said:


> Until Christopher Tolkien and Peter Jackson are able to kiss and become BFF's yeah, ya might as well just dream of the idea of The Silmarillion.




My hope is with Christopher finding some other director with whom he wants to co-operate to produce films more loyal to his own vision of Middle-Earth. Yeah, not very likely, but at least it's possible.

I don't remember when the copyright for the Silmarillion expires and it passes on into public domain, but I believe it is in some distant future. So they're in no hurry.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 18, 2014)

Gonna rewatch the LOTR trilogy from today, so great to have this shit on DVD. Seen it countless times but never gets boring  Nazgul


----------



## Bender (Dec 18, 2014)

@Pocalypse

I got that friend on blu ray


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 18, 2014)

Did anyone else find the camera work really weird in the beginning?

Like watching something on fast forward.


----------



## MartialHorror (Dec 18, 2014)

I thought it was the 'worst' of all the Lotr/Hobbit movies, although keep in mind, the worst is still better than most movies. My written review is in sig, or here:


----------



## Psychic (Dec 19, 2014)

The Battle of the Five Armies - very good movie. Love every minute of it. 10/10


----------



## Nuuskis (Dec 19, 2014)

heavy_rasengan said:


> And it could have been even worse than these movies. Not sure what people's fascination with Del Toro is, aside from Pan's Labyrinth, he hasn't directed anything that can even be remotely put on the same level as the LOTR trilogy. The obvious choice would be to have the same director that is familiar with the material and who directed the LOTR masterpiece at the helm of the Hobbit. Unfortunately, it didn't work out so well as these moves are decent at best (still haven't seen the latest one yet though). What Del Toro really brings to the table is in the form of visual splendor but Jackson is already a master of this and the Hobbit has already been lauded in this department. Story and pacing wise, I highly doubt Del Toro would have done anything better but I guess we'll never know.



Pan's Labyrinth was very good fantasy film with good fairy tale feel to it. That's what these Hobbit movies would have needed more in my opinion, and Del Toro most likely would have nailed it.

Only times these Hobbit films brought me the feel of a book was during the Bag End and Gollum scenes in the first one.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 19, 2014)

Gotta say I liked the death scene. (Do we need to still avoid spoilers?)


*Spoiler*: __ 



















Yeah I got a bit misty eyed. I never cry at movies, so that was pretty well.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 19, 2014)

Nuuskis said:


> Pan's Labyrinth was very good fantasy film with good fairy tale feel to it. That's what these Hobbit movies would have needed more in my opinion, and Del Toro most likely would have nailed it.
> 
> Only times these Hobbit films brought me the feel of a book was during the Bag End and* Gollum scenes *in the first one.



I agree but I believe that Del Toro and Jackson have similar strengths and similar weaknesses.

The Gollum scenes were by far my favorite scenes of the first two. I think PJ did a pretty good job with the first movie aside from the fact that it too long for the journey begin. Fan fiction was kept at a minimum (relatively speaking) and some of the most emotional scenes in the book were adapted very well on the big screen. The second one scrapped scenes from the book and went into fan fiction mode which is why I despised it. The majority of the reviews here signify that Jackson did the same thing for this latest one so I'm not sure if I'm going to like it. However, I was a massive fan of the battle scenes in Two Towers and ROTK so that may prove to be the redeeming quality for me.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 19, 2014)

You're in for disappointment if you expect the action to be the redeeming quality of this movie.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 19, 2014)

Legolas was doing some shit that he really shouldn't be possible of doing. Can't believe he could somersault that orc at the end fight and act like nothing


----------



## Amanda (Dec 20, 2014)

Never mind that, how did he jump on stones that were already falling?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 20, 2014)

Shame Smaug went out early, he could have been the Bowser to his Super Mario.


----------



## Hidd3N_NiN (Dec 20, 2014)

Saw the movie today and overall I liked it but really, this movie could have been 1.5 hours long rather than 2.5 hours long. Unlike Desolation of Smaug where I got bored with the overly long Smaug Erebor Action Sequence, the battle scenes (Pretty much the last 1.5 hours of the film) was actually quite nice although they could have been cut short a lot more.

I liked that the movie helped to develop more of Bard's character seeing how barebones he was in the book. The White Council facing Sauron and the Nazgul was pretty awesome but I didn't like seeing Galadriel constantly falling over and acting like she was dying or something while trying to save Gandalf. That seemed really weird and made her look weak.

Now the stuff I didn't like. They really should have cut out some action scenes to give more time for a proper resolution to the film. Once the battle is barely over, they cut straight to Bilbo leaving Erebor and returning to the Shire just like that. We never even see how they settled the issue with the Humans and the Elves as well as 

*Spoiler*: __ 



any kind of funeral for the dead Dwarves and Thorin, or Dain Ironfoot claiming the Throne. You would think after the 3 movies spend so much time talking about the Arkenstone that we'd at least get closure for it with Thorin's funeral and Bard returning the Arkenstone back to Thorin's tomb.




Beorn appearing for like 5 seconds in the movie was lame as hell. What was the point of including him in the film then? They had over an hour of Humans, Elves and Dwarves fighting Orcs and they couldn't cut out some of those action scenes to give Beorn even 1 minute of showtime? Also Smaug dying in like the first 10-15 min of the movie. They really should have cut short the excessive boring Erebor Action Sequence in the 2nd Movie and finished Smaug off in the 2nd movie then.

Kili/Tauriel Romance Subplot was a waste of time (partially because I already knew he would end up dying) and was poorly developed in any case. Kili and Tauriel barely spend any time together and suddenly both of them act like they're fullblown lovers, it was weird.

Many Legolas scenes felt really unncessary and padded on, especially when he goes to Gundabad. That whole sequence could have been cut out and it wouldn't really have changed the story all that much.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 20, 2014)

Amanda said:


> Never mind that, how did he jump on stones that were already falling?



Oh yeah, shit  At first I thought he was gliding but this guy was just defying everything which came towards him.

Damn, who needs the Fellowship. Just send Legolas against Sauron and it's a done deal.


----------



## Yasha (Dec 20, 2014)

Action and reaction still apply in free fall, so it wasn't entirely physics law-defying. For elves anyway.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 20, 2014)

Speaking of Peter Jackson inserting fanfiction into his movies, do you think he was trying to imply something when Bilbo hesitated to say what Thorin was to him? 

Heck, he didn't even finish the sentence the first time around.


----------



## Yasha (Dec 20, 2014)

I don't know about that, but this film has enough to feed the fanfic community frenzy for a while. 

Galadriel having an orgasm was pretty hilarious.

Also, that Legolas x Gimli relationship in LOTR was the ultimate example of "standing up at where you fall".


----------



## Gabe (Dec 20, 2014)

I saw it today it was good I liked the movie


----------



## Gomu Ningen (Dec 21, 2014)

What an over-dramatized pile of shit. And I liked the first two, even if I had a few issues with them.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Dec 21, 2014)

Just saw it last night.

A solid 7/10 for me. I liked it much, much better than the second movie and i found it to be slightly superior to the first. My grievances with the movie are generally the same ones expressed by others in this thread.


*Spoiler*: __ 



The emotional scenes were very over-dramatized and again the love sub-plot was ridiculous and terrible. I hate how Beorn was shafted again and the conclusion was rather underwhelming. For a trilogy that was adapted from a 200 page book; the ending should not feel rushed lol. And I have qualms with how they messed with the consistency. It would have been better if they suspected the Necromancer to be Sauron instead of full out knowing that its him.




As for the pros


*Spoiler*: __ 



It is very, very difficult to dislike this movie when you watch it in IMAX. The visuals were simply dazzling. I don't care if the Smaug scene in the beginning was short because it was so crisp and brilliant. The scenery again was awesome and the action sequences were impressive. I really liked the set up for the battle as well and now in hindsight I like the fact that Azog was added because a leaderless army (like in the book) wouldn't have been as effective. The deaths were also very well done imo.


----------



## FireEel (Dec 21, 2014)

This movie gets better on the 2nd watch.

Still, could have been shorter.


----------



## Sferr (Dec 22, 2014)

I haven't read Hobbit and from what I can see from the movies, doing a trilogy out of it is perfectly doable. I liked the first two movies very well, even though there were moments that bugged me - particularly over the top cartoonish action scenes and "in your face" character moments. But despite it, the movies were very good. The third though... 


*Spoiler*: __ 



It basically consisted with over the top cartoonish action and "in your face" character moments. Some tricks Legolas did were ridiculous (I laughed out loud when he was running on falling stones) , the absurdity of orcs being so disposable became bigger then in all other movies put together ( Bilbo knocking out a couple of orcs by throwing some tiny stones at them is just wow ), Thorin's character changes were so "in your face", P J was probably making sure that little babies could understand that what Thorin was doing was wrong.




Overall, I disliked it. And the movie's problem is not that a tiny book was made into a trilogy. I mean, I felt that BOT5A was rushed as hell with no coherent storytelling. 
*Spoiler*: __ 



(Ok, the orcs breached the city walls and poured into it, slaughtering humans left and right, with humans having no chance to survive. Elves then enter the city to fight the orcs. The orcs have a vast majority. Do we see how these orcs are dealt with? No, lol, who cares, let's see Legolas killing hundreds of orcs for half an hour, then trying to kill one orc for another half an hour.)


----------



## Aeternus (Dec 23, 2014)

Watched it yesterday. It was an ok movie. Could be better, could be worse. Stuff I liked were Galadriel beating Sauron and generally that scene at castle with them fighting the Nine kings was nice. Some actions scenes were cool although some were a bit too much like Legolas jumping on the falling rocks lol Could do without the love triangle thing though. Felt a lot out of place.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 23, 2014)

The love triangle is Peter Jackson's fault. The LOST actress hated doing the love triangle and just wanted to be a kick ass female character.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 23, 2014)

^ Yeah, she's a Tolkien fan herself and wanted to be part of the movie experience, but didn't want to film anything that she felt would be out of place. I don't remember if she specifically asked the role to not to involve any silly romances or such (she had the misfortune of having to be part of a very annoying love triangle in Lost). Anyway, I recall she accepted the role with these assured... and then the role was rewritten to be a love story after all, to her dislike. If that tale is true, then it was pretty dirty from PJ & co.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 23, 2014)

Yeah that is true. Her original role didn't involve any romance but PJ did some sneaky shit and rewrote her role. Probably thought hey she was already in one love triangle with Jack and Sawyer...but this time let's switch it to mythical creatures 

I can at least say the love triangle in LOST was justified and fine, but this one was just random and didn't garner the same fan reaction or group of fans to choose a side.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 23, 2014)

The LOST triangle started out fine, but was brought along for way to long. Sawyer especially was better off with Juliet. 

I DOS I thought Tauriel x Kili was kinda cute, but at the end of the day it really went nowhere and had no real purpose to be there. It provided something to do for a character that wasn't really needed in the first place, distracted already existing characters from interactions that imo would have served the story better (How about some screen time for D?s and Fili? Or Thranduil & Legolas interaction that doesn't resolve around Tauriel?)...

... and what is the worst offender for me, was written so that other, already pre-existing characters were made to look worse than they really are to allow Tauriel appear saintly and her love thingy with Kili to appear unique. That's the least savory aspect of any OC: taking from the canon characters rather than giving them.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 23, 2014)

I rewatched the LOTR triology yesterday, what did you think of the Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn triangle? I wanted Eowyn to end up with Aragorn but I also felt for Arwen since one couldn't be there and the other was building a relationship 

Aragorn the fucking pimp


----------



## Stunna (Dec 23, 2014)

Sure am looking forward to the Hobbit trilogy fan-edit. :33


----------



## Amanda (Dec 23, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> I rewatched the LOTR triology yesterday, what did you think of the Aragorn/Arwen/Eowyn triangle? I wanted Eowyn to end up with Aragorn but I also felt for Arwen since one couldn't be there and the other was building a relationship
> 
> Aragorn the fucking pimp





I admit I always used to prefer Aragorn x ?owyn, but have come to appreciate Faramir x ?owyn as well. Aragorn x Arwen... I don't mind it and Liv Tyler looks pretty in her pretty costumes, but that's about it. She's too absent and passive for me to really care about the relationship.

By the way, the story behind this little love triangle is that originally when Tolkien was inventing and writing LotR, he didn't think of Arwen. He just wrote the story as it came to his mind, and by the time he got to Rohan, he invented ?owyn and decided to pair her with Aragorn. It's fun to read those first scripts where Aragorn is smitten by ?owyn and becomes absent minded while thinking of her. 

But then Tolkien decided against it, thinking that the pairing wouldn't work because of how old and grim Aragorn is, and let go of the idea. Some time later he invented the character of Arwen to be Aragorn's love interest. But by then he had written the plot all the way to the Gondor segment, and there was no natural way to add her into the plot. Which is why she appears like an afterthought plastered on the rest of the story... that's what she literally is. Poor girl.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 23, 2014)

The Arwen romance to be fair was supposed to be Beren/Luthien V2 who would be their ancestors centuries ago, shame Tolkien never got around to editing/rewriting Arwen into the story properly, LOTR movies in that regard did better although Glorfindel may not approve of his role being taken in FOTR . The Arwen tied to The One was an unneeded asspull for drama though. Plus Arwen choosing to be human parallels Elrond's twin Elros doing similar to become King of Numenor and him loosing a love one and it's Elros' descendant at that. 



> I DOS I thought Tauriel x Kili was kinda cute, but at the end of the day it really went nowhere and had no real purpose to be there. It provided something to do for a character that wasn't really needed in the first place, distracted already existing characters from interactions that imo would have served the story better (How about some screen time for D?s and Fili? Or *Thranduil & Legolas* interaction that doesn't resolve around Tauriel?)...



Less Legolas for me TBQH.


----------



## Tony Lou (Dec 23, 2014)

Amanda said:


> I admit I always used to prefer Aragorn x ?owyn, but have come to appreciate Faramir x ?owyn as well. Aragorn x Arwen... I don't mind it and Liv Tyler looks pretty in her pretty costumes, but that's about it. She's too absent and passive for me to really care about the relationship.
> 
> By the way, the story behind this little love triangle is that originally when Tolkien was inventing and writing LotR, he didn't think of Arwen. He just wrote the story as it came to his mind, and by the time he got to Rohan, he invented ?owyn and decided to pair her with Aragorn. It's fun to read those first scripts where Aragorn is smitten by ?owyn and becomes absent minded while thinking of her.
> 
> But then Tolkien decided against it, thinking that the pairing wouldn't work because of how old and grim Aragorn is, and let go of the idea. Some time later he invented the character of Arwen to be Aragorn's love interest. But by then he had written the plot all the way to the Gondor segment, and there was no natural way to add her into the plot. Which is why she appears like an afterthought plastered on the rest of the story... that's what she literally is. Poor girl.



In every love triangle there's always this character who doesn't stand a chance and is only there to fuel the drama between the real couple.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Tranquil Fury said:


> The Arwen romance to be fair was supposed to be Beren/Luthien V2 who would be their ancestors centuries ago---




I left out that the love story Tolkien came up with them wasn't even a new invention, but just a rehash of Beren x L?thien. In fact, Arwen as a person is mostly characterized by her connection and similarity to another, more developed character, L?thien. For me at least the result is that she lacks any individuality, and her story lacks true inspiration.

However, I agree it's a pity Tolkien didn't find a way to integrate the story better into the narrative. In fact, it's a pity Aragon's life story was never written into one singular narrative, like Beren's or T?rin's or Tuor?s.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 24, 2014)

Another thing which I don't understand is in ROTK, how was the Witch-King...the most dreaded Nazgul member able to break Gandalf's staff, the white version of Gandalf mind you, and it was hinted that Gandalf was scared of the Witch-King...and yet the Witch-King couldn't break Eowyn's sword. She even had the strength to slay the dragon's head and drive her attack through the Witch-King's face 

Is that PIS? And is that how he was defeated in the books also?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 24, 2014)

In the books he's not that strong, he's strong but not Gandalf the white level since that is closer to his maia/divine being levels and Angmar is a corrupted man with a ring of power, he was willing to fight Gandalf but the fight was interrupted. His arrogance gets the better of him plus Dunedain/Numenorean sword made specifically to kill him and he goes down.


----------



## Pocalypse (Dec 24, 2014)

So basically Gandalf was nerfed in the films. Hate that because he's always made to look weak. We see a flashback of him fighting the Balrog with actual fighting abilities and then a stronger version of himself nearly gets soloed by the Witch-King, which I'm sure is weaker than a Balrog since a Balrog is Maia level. 

But you never know. Melkor who is supposedly the strongest Valar was nearly beaten by Ungoliant (where I read that Melkor was screaming in pain that his anguish could be heard over miles and miles) who we have no clue on what race the spider was. Melkor also lost twice against Tulkas and that he'd always run away from Tulkas, which also contradicts Melkor on being the strongest Valar I am guessing.

Fucking love this mythology. I have ordered the silmarillion through Amazon. Gonna smash it when it arrives  Don't let me down Melkor


----------



## Amanda (Dec 24, 2014)

Pocalypse said:


> Is that PIS? And is that how he was defeated in the books also?




Long story short, the blade Merry was wielding was custom made to kill him. ?owyn didn't actually kill him, more like she provided distraction. Or perhaps her sword has some doing in it too, but only because Merry's dagger had done its magical job.

Of course, the background tale for this all goes back some thousand years. It would fill an essay to explain it all. 



Pocalypse said:


> But you never know. Melkor who is supposedly the strongest Valar was nearly beaten by Ungoliant (where I read that Melkor was screaming in pain that his anguish could be heard over miles and miles) who we have no clue on what race the spider was. Melkor also lost twice against Tulkas and that he'd always run away from Tulkas, which also contradicts Melkor on being the strongest Valar I am guessing.




Ungoliant is an anomaly, though. She's not one of the Valar, perhaps not even of the Ainur in general. To lose to her doesn't disqualify Melkor as the strongest of the Valar.

As for the Tulkas business, that's explainable as well. Each of the Valar have their special field of interest and goverment. Varda is the Vali? of the light, Yavanna is the mother earth, Ulmo is of the waters and seas, and so forth. It's Tulkas' speciality to be strong in matters of struggle and "physical" (or perhaps rather material) prowess. 

Melkor masters the extremities of nature, the cold and the hot. But he's not restricted to this. He is explained to have share in the powers of all the other Valar. So in general he is stronger than Tulkas, but in this one matter, fighting, Tulkas bests him, as it's Tulkas' speciality. 



Pocalypse said:


> Fucking love this mythology. I have ordered the silmarillion through Amazon. Gonna smash it when it arrives  Don't let me down Melkor




Good luck! Hope you enjoy it... and don't be confused by all the "F names".


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 24, 2014)

> But you never know. Melkor who is supposedly the strongest Valar was nearly beaten by Ungoliant (where I read that Melkor was screaming in pain that his anguish could be heard over miles and miles) who we have no clue on what race the spider was. Melkor also lost twice against Tulkas and that he'd always run away from Tulkas, which also contradicts Melkor on being the strongest Valar I am guessing



Melkor got weaker the more he exerted his power to create things like dragons or corrupt Maia like Balrogs. Ungoliath was also powered up by juice from trees that grew the sun and moon. Tolkien also may have retconned her into a Maia later on but otherwise she is an unknown.

Tulkas is second only to Melkor physically being the Valar god of war, prime Melkor fought all the Valar at once and was the embodiment of evil, Tulkas had to jump in to break the balance the first time. 

Melkor varied in power by getting weaker and weaker the more he tried to reshape everything in his image by pouring his power into things.


----------



## Bender (Dec 24, 2014)

(Bro fists Pocalypse)

I got Silmarillion audio book. Shit awesome.

Silmarillion read by Martin Shaw and he children of Hurin read by Christopher Lee.


----------



## Kuromaku (Dec 24, 2014)

I finally saw the film and a few complaints stuck with me:

-That one troll that used its head as a battering ram. Kind of silly watching it knock down a wall then keel over.
-PJ overdoing it with the Legolas is awesome stuff. I'm pretty sure Mario would call bullshit on the part where he hops across falling blocks.
-Why did we need a love triangle? Couldn't more time have been devoted to making the dwarves memorable characters instead of wasting time on OCs?
-Thorin's madness was portrayed in a rather ridiculous manner. That vision of drowning in gold was nothing short of "what the fuck am I watching?"

These things, among others, aside, it was decent. On the whole, the new trilogy could have been shortened to two films or a miniseries, and it doesn't quite live up to the previous trilogy (sound familiar?), but they were decent, if flawed films.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 24, 2014)

It's already been said, but in a real fight the Nazgul would stand zero chance against an Istari, especially the White Wizard, whoever that happens to be at the time.  

The whole idea behind Gandalf is that he's not meant to win wars or save people through raw displays of power, but through inspiration, so he avoids combat when he can help it. He's meant to rally people and give them hope. There are occasions, such as with the Balrog and a few times earlier in his life, when he was forced to fight. He never once comes close to using his full power in Middle Earth, though. In fact, due to being trapped in a mortal body, he can't, but he doesn't even use anywhere near all the power he can use as "Gandalf" for that matter.


----------



## Amanda (Dec 25, 2014)

Bender said:


> children of Hurin read by Christopher Lee.




That's.... awesome. Consentrated awesome. I honestly envy you.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 25, 2014)

Glaurung for President.


----------



## Stein (Dec 25, 2014)

Bender said:


> (Bro fists Pocalypse)
> 
> I got Silmarillion audio book. Shit awesome.
> 
> Silmarillion read by Martin Shaw and he children of Hurin read by *Christopher Lee*.



Oh god, I need that.

[YOUTUBE]XdhpA2yPu1w[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Miss Bonney (Dec 26, 2014)

Thorin drowning in gold was a bit.. hmm..


----------



## Sferr (Dec 26, 2014)

Miss Bonney said:


> Thorin drowning in gold was a bit.. hmm..



So was his first descend to evil in slow-mo 

So ridiculously over the top.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 26, 2014)

Yeah most of that came off as comically than tragic and sinister. Did we need to hear Smaug's words coming out of his mouth from DOS?Did we need that horrid dream sequence?Infact they only started this build near the end of DOS, you could say Dragon sickness of the mountain speed it up but this felt rushed.


----------



## Pilaf (Dec 27, 2014)

Seeing lots of negative comments on Battle of the Five Armies, so I'm going to comment on something I think they got right. Billy Connolly was hilariously cast as Dain. That was a damn inspired role for him.


----------



## Sanity Check (Dec 27, 2014)

I have copies of the first two movies & haven't been able to watch all the way through them without thinking.. "WTF am I watching" and turning it off partway through.

What am I missing?


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Dec 27, 2014)

Pilaf said:


> Seeing lots of negative comments on Battle of the Five Armies, so I'm going to comment on something I think they got right. Billy Connolly was hilariously cast as Dain. That was a damn inspired role for him.



A horrible Scottish stereotype that may be worse than Gimli reduced to comic relief?(keep in mind Gimli was thrown into Orcs).


----------



## Black Leg Sanji (Dec 27, 2014)

Just saw it

Some good scenes, but overall pretty average as the previous one

Legolas and the love sub-plot was ugh again


----------



## tari101190 (Dec 31, 2014)




----------



## ShadowReaper (Dec 31, 2014)

Worse than the previous triology, but nonetheless an excellent piece of work.


----------



## Payapaya (Jan 1, 2015)

Just saw it with my old man.  I enjoyed it and Peter Jackson definitely did not hold back with the final battle or the action sequences.  Over all I enjoyed the movies, but I do believe LoTR to be the better of the two trilogies.

"There were still some plot points unanswered."

"Well now it is time for you to watch the LoTR."

My dad will surely enjoy them like he did with the Hobbit.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 1, 2015)

> "There were still some plot points unanswered."
> 
> "Well now it is time for you to watch the LoTR."



LOTR does not answer much and Hobbit contradicts LOTR at times. Jackson made a book into 3 movies of 2+ hours, his fault at not answering things and introducing things that became irrelevant or not needed.


----------



## Payapaya (Jan 1, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> LOTR does not answer much and Hobbit contradicts LOTR at times. Jackson made a book into 3 movies of 2+ hours, his fault at not answering things and introducing things that became irrelevant or not needed.




He was mainly interested in the Ring and what happened to Saruman and Sauron.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 1, 2015)

Ah, well regardless it's a great series of movies so he'll love it I'm sure. If he's interested in the original material he should check them out too.


----------



## Pilaf (Jan 1, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> A horrible Scottish stereotype that may be worse than Gimli reduced to comic relief?(keep in mind Gimli was thrown into Orcs).



Yes. That describes Mr. Connolly pretty accurately.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 2, 2015)

So I read this rumor on Tumblr:



> I cant wait for your review of the BOFA movie! Im counting the days here lol Also i wanted to ask you, since i read on Tumblr but i hope its not true, that PJ said that he wanted to add some scenes to Lotr triology so he can put Tauriel in it? Is it cuz they want to make the whole Tauriel/Legolas love canon now? That would ruin Lotr for me



And reacted with the only proper reaction:



Then I clicked the notes to see what people had commented... only to find this:



> Excerpt from the interview with Peter Jackson and Philippa Boyens:
> 
> Now that the entire franchise is done, are there any characters from “The Hobbit” that you’re sad you can’t move into “Lord of the Rings”?
> 
> ...



Which is from this interview.

It's a joke, perhaps sure, but somehow it feels like someone was walking on my grave.  Though it's true, she does just disappear from the story.


----------



## masamune1 (Jan 2, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> A horrible Scottish stereotype that may be worse than Gimli reduced to comic relief?(keep in mind Gimli was thrown into Orcs).





Pilaf said:


> Yes. That describes Mr. Connolly pretty accurately.



Billy Connolly is a horrible Scottish stereotype?


----------



## Pocalypse (Jan 2, 2015)

What other director can tackle Middle-Earth and take it by its reigns?


----------



## Amanda (Jan 2, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> What other director can tackle Middle-Earth and take it by its reigns?




I don't pretend to know many directors, but if someone with dark and poetic (but not without sense of realism, especially that of nature) style would step up, I'd be all too happy.


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 2, 2015)

If they ever did that with Tauriel, Jackson cements his Lucas V2 status, it would be akin to Lucas removing Sebastian Shaw as Vader force ghost for Hayden Christensen or adding NOOOO to ROTJ.

It's a joke but it could happen.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jan 2, 2015)

Amanda said:


> I don't pretend to know many directors, but if someone with dark and poetic (but not without sense of realism, especially that of nature) style would step up, I'd be all too happy.



So do you think LOTR series (not Hobbit) lived up to its expectations? Or could someone else made it better? I think it was brilliant. If anything, I have to thank PJ for bringing me to this mythology otherwise I wouldn't even know it existed


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 2, 2015)

LOTR was good but it could have been better, still it was definately one of the best things to happen to movies and helped Tolkien works gain more popularity.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 3, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> So do you think LOTR series (not Hobbit) lived up to its expectations? Or could someone else made it better? I think it was brilliant. If anything, I have to thank PJ for bringing me to this mythology otherwise I wouldn't even know it existed




It's a very good movie trilogy. However, it's such an intimate part of my memories and indeed my whole life that it's hard for me to be objective about it. 

I'd say the Fellowship is more or less perfect. With the Two Towers and the Return of the King you can find elements and scenes that could be improved, but in general they're great films as well.


----------



## heavy_rasengan (Jan 3, 2015)

Pocalypse said:


> So do you think LOTR series (not Hobbit) lived up to its expectations? Or could someone else made it better? I think it was brilliant. If anything, I have to thank PJ for bringing me to this mythology otherwise I wouldn't even know it existed



The LOTR trilogy is, simply put: a masterpiece. Not only was it able to satisfy Tolkien purists (for the most part) but it was also able to reach those not previously interested in the lore. I believe that to be Jackson's greatest achievement. I mean, it is difficult enough to adapt such a complex and deep source material but to be able to do it while satisfying Tolkien purists, critics, the industry and the general audience is nothing short of masterful. I don't believe that any director on this planet could have matched it let alone done a better job. 

The Hobbit trilogy doesn't hold a candle to its predecessor even though it was decent.


----------



## Pocalypse (Jan 3, 2015)

Fair enough. I was doing research and landed on the son hating everything about the adaption, even the original one and apparently tried to sue PJ or the company or whatever but failed


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 4, 2015)

Aragorn was 87 years old in LOTR movies as per Two Towers in the extended edition scene with Eowyn and cooking. He comes from a race of men who have Elven heritage(Elros who was Elrond's twin brother and half human/elf that chose to become human unlike Elrond) and were blessed by the gods thus being long lived i.e Dunedain/Numenoreans. Elrond references Numenor blood for Aragorn in Fellowship and Return of the King but could be extended edition too.

Yes Aragorn is related to Elrond. Elrond takes him in because he's descendant from his twin brother and due to his status as King of Numenor/Dunedain/Men.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jan 12, 2015)

I finally got to see this movie and while it was just fine fantasy action movie and wasn't terrible as a movie, I was still rather disappointed. I didn't get the feel of the book like with LotR and the first Hobbit and this time around there weren't any iconic scenes from the book to elevate this movie for me, like Riddles in the dark or Bilbo and Smaug. Before I saw it, I was mostly interested about Dol Guldur-scene but unfortunately even that turned into silly action scene. Out of all of Tolkien's characters, Ringwraiths shouldn't fight like Legolas. Confrontation between Galadriel and Sauron was handled well but there also was that weird looking effect with Sauron from DoS.

I also agree that Smaug's death would have worked better as the ending of DoS instead of the clumsy cliff hanger and the silly action scene. Now he seemed kinda separate from the movie. Thank god he wasn't completely cut from the movie like Saruman was in RotK.

The infamous love story felt as forced and unnecessary as before, they tried to create drama when Kili got killed and Tauriel tried to prevent that, but it felt flat to me considering I didn't care about their "love". At least it wasn't as bad as the love story in Attack of the Clones.

Character performances were pretty solid and Thorin's madness was portrayed well. Unfortunately Beorn was reduced to a cameo character. Everyone else were pretty good and given enough focus and screentime except Legolas who had too much focus in these movies and the rest of the dwarves which could have used more focus.

And sometimes the movie felt rushed, like they knew there is going to be extended version later anyway so it's okay to leave some important scenes out of the actual movie. I myself think that is not the way to do it. Like we saw Gandalf with Radagast's staff but we didn't see him giving it to him. Or what happened to Bard, the Arkenstone or the rest of the dwarves. And there's obviously more content for the extended edition when Bilbo and Gandalf returns to Shire.

Overall I liked this slightly less than DoS, Unexpected Journey I liked the most but all of these were a far cry from LotR and I am glad PJ won't be making movies from Tolkien's books anymore for now.


----------



## blacklusterseph004 (Jan 12, 2015)

Yeah, saw this at the end of last year. A bit too much focus on fighting I think. I get that it is about a war but the way the armies come together seems very contrived. The film is also broken by these wierd pieces like Thorin coming to grips with his madness (in fact a lot of the stuff involving Thorin) seemed to drag in for just a little too long in each case where I think another filmmaker would have gotten the same point across with far less laboured metaphors and cliches.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 12, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> Aragorn was 87 years old in LOTR movies as per Two Towers in the extended edition scene with Eowyn and cooking.



By the way, there has been some complaints about Thranduil speaking of Aragorn as if he was already a figure to be acknowledged, when in the book timeline he is 10 years old during the Hobbit. This actually isn't a mistake. The movie timeline is a bit different, and omits a 20 years long time skip within LotR. So in the movie timeline, during the time of the Hobbit Aragorn is already 30 or so. Just mentioning it...



Nuuskis said:


> And sometimes the movie felt rushed, like they knew there is going to be extended version later anyway so it's okay to leave some important scenes out of the actual movie. I myself think that is not the way to do it. *Like we saw Gandalf with Radagast's staff but we didn't see him giving it to him*. Or what happened to Bard, the Arkenstone or the rest of the dwarves. And there's obviously more content for the extended edition when Bilbo and Gandalf returns to Shire.




Oh my,  I didn't even notice the staff switching, even though Gandalf carrying a strange staff that was later identified as Radagast's was one of the early plot points discussed by the fandom. We were sure Radagast would become a victim to PJ's fondness of death scenes. But ultimately it was needless, as he already got three death scenes to have fun with. 

This is probably the only Hobbit EE that I'm honestly looking towards to.


----------



## Cyphon (Jan 12, 2015)

I don't feel like doing a long review but I thought this third movie was okay. The main part I would think worth revisiting was near the end when the 4 dwarves went to head off the incoming orcs or whoever they were. Good action and emotion from that point on. Before then it was all just kind of mediocre. Not bad, but nothing jumps out at you either.

If I were ranking the 3 of them I would go 1 > 3 > 2.


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 12, 2015)

Man this movie was garbage. Don't even have anything to say.


----------



## Keunig Pier (Jan 14, 2015)

I liked the 3rd part too.


----------



## Sanity Check (Jan 17, 2015)

Amanda said:


> The movie timeline is a bit different, and *omits a 20 years long time skip within LotR*. So in the movie timeline, during the time of the Hobbit Aragorn is already 30 or so. Just mentioning it...



Is it the 17 year time skip that goes down at the beginning of the 1st book?


----------



## Table (Jan 17, 2015)

I wasn't impressed with the Hobbit trilogy in general because to me it lacked the overall essence of the book.  I missed the great "journey" aspect, the whimsical scenes set by Tolkien, the ballads and music, and the lessons learned.  They just lacked poetry and the light-hearted tone of the Hobbit.  

I feel like Peter Jackson tried to darken the storyline and add a ton of action to excite viewers and get more $$$$ at the box office but it was too much.  Like, in LOTR Legolas has one or two cool tricks (using the shield to glide down the stairs, or killing the oliphant) but in the Hobbit he was pulling out mad tricks every 5 seconds.  And he relied way too much on CGI, in a way I think the huge budget is what led to his downfall.  There wasn't as much creativity, just an obsession with hi-tech.


Anyway, still loved the films, stilled cried in the last one, still going to buy the extended edition.  And I adore the cast. I also love the glimpses into Middle Earth, and I think Jackson and his team brings it to life better than anyone else could.


----------



## Amanda (Jan 17, 2015)

Sanity Check said:


> Is it the 17 year time skip that goes down at the beginning of the 1st book?




That's the one. He says bye and isn't seen again for years. That didn't happen in the movie - he's away perhaps a few months.


----------



## Nuuskis (Jan 20, 2015)

Give this guy a damn medal. I am eager to see this edit, although it's still pretty long movie, easily worth for two movies.

But I am still going to wait for someone who makes a fanedit from the extended versions, I still need that extended Beorn scene for my ultimate Hobbit experience.


----------



## asdfa (Jan 20, 2015)

Yeah, I'll wait for a more professional edit of the extended versions.
I'm sure there are many scenes from the actual book that were cut to make space for shit filler. Ironic as it gets.

Gon b gud


----------



## Tranquil Fury (Jan 23, 2015)

3 hour edit, someone has done another edit as well besides the existing two versions of 4 and 3.

Also


----------



## Grimmjowsensei (Jan 23, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> 3 hour edit, someone has done another edit as well besides the existing two versions of 4 and 3.
> 
> Also



Thats better than the actual film.


----------



## asdfa (Jan 23, 2015)

The credits are still gonna be hour long though.


----------



## tari101190 (Jan 23, 2015)

Oh wow I'm gonna try watch the one movie edit today.


----------



## Table (Jan 28, 2015)

Tranquil Fury said:


> 3 hour edit, someone has done another edit as well besides the existing two versions of 4 and 3.
> 
> Also



Love       it.


----------



## Federer (Feb 1, 2015)

Grimmjowsensei said:


> Man this movie was garbage. Don't even have anything to say.



It could have been worse.

It could have been a Michael Bay movie.


----------



## Pilaf (Feb 1, 2015)

In hindsight, while this movie had its moments, I'd much rather read the book, or at least watch the old cartoon.


----------



## Amanda (Feb 2, 2015)

Nuuskis said:


> Give this guy a damn medal. I am eager to see this edit, although it's still pretty long movie, easily worth for two movies.
> 
> But I am still going to wait for someone who makes a fanedit from the extended versions, I still need that extended Beorn scene for my ultimate Hobbit experience.





Tranquil Fury said:


> 3 hour edit, someone has done another edit as well besides the existing two versions of 4 and 3.





And there goes the rest of my day. Thanks, both!


----------



## DemonDragonJ (Feb 2, 2015)

That 4-hour single film edit of this trilogy is an most awesome feat; I am not certain if I have that much time to spend to watch it, but I must give my congratulations to the person who accomplished that. It reminds me of a person who made his own edits of the original _Star Wars_ trilogy, to undo some of the worst changes that George Lucas made while also fixing many errors that the filmmakers themselves missed and actually improving the audio and video quality from the DVD releases.

I do agree that too many unnecessary extra scenes were added to this film, simply to make them longer and earn more money for the filmmakers, but they were still excellent films, nevertheless.


----------



## Sennin of Hardwork (Mar 25, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]r4xxym2tyEM[/YOUTUBE]
[YOUTUBE]TZm_Zth0rhw[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## aaaaa (Mar 25, 2015)

Was a special edition edit already made?


----------



## Amanda (Mar 27, 2015)

[YOUTUBE]sTl0nms_5ow[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 29, 2015)

My love and my hate for this trilogy continues to grow as time passes. Is that normal? I both love and hate these movies, and both of these feelings continue to grow. I love the LOTR movies, and hate them just a little bit due to my love of the books, but my love/hate for the Hobbit is roughly 50/50.


----------



## aaaaa (Mar 29, 2015)

Maybe you've only seen 50% of the Hobbit movies?


----------



## Pilaf (Mar 29, 2015)

aaaaa said:


> Maybe you've only seen 50% of the Hobbit movies?



Who has two thumbs and doesn't buy for one second the bullshit notion that someone needs to wait for a director's cut to get the full movie experience?

Pilaf the Goddamn defiler, that's who. And he uses his two thumbs to gauge out the eyes of people who say dumb shit like that.


----------



## Amanda (Mar 29, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> My love and my hate for this trilogy continues to grow as time passes. Is that normal? I both love and hate these movies, and both of these feelings continue to grow. I love the LOTR movies, and hate them just a little bit due to my love of the books, but my love/hate for the Hobbit is roughly 50/50.





Seems like we have more or less similar feelings. I love the LotR movies for being a great fantasy trilogy, but sometimes nag about some details. The Hobbit movies are much harder to swallow, but have their good moments, especially on the actor front.


----------



## aaaaa (Mar 29, 2015)

Pilaf said:


> Who has two thumbs and doesn't buy for one second the bullshit notion that someone needs to wait for a director's cut to get the full movie experience?
> 
> Pilaf the Goddamn defiler, that's who. And he uses his two thumbs to gauge out the eyes of people who say dumb shit like that.


Bwahahaha, so edgy. So angsty. You sure you like Hobbit and not Maze Runner


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 13, 2022)

Today (Dec. 14) is the 10th anniversary. I suppose it's time to watch the Extended Editions.


----------



## EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! (Dec 13, 2022)

They made Extended Editions of these? Aren't they bloated enough as they are?


----------



## dr_shadow (Dec 14, 2022)

EVERY SINGLE DAY!!! said:


> They made Extended Editions of these? Aren't they bloated enough as they are?



Is Peter Jackson's wallet bloated enough as it is?

The answer is NO!

The extended editions of The Lord of the Rings had a combined running time of like 12 hours, so I ended up watching them in twelve one-hour sessions, like a TV show. Probably do the same here.


----------

