Peter Jackson to make The Hobbit (1 Viewer)

[Mjolnirs]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any reviews in here yet. I saw it at midnight and pretty much enjoyed the movie.

Spoiler

They stick pretty close to the main story and ended the movie about where I though they would.

I like the added background on the Dwarf Kingdom and seeing the meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Their council and the scenes with Radagast are good foreshadowing for the rise of Sauron.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about the introduction of the Pale Orc, but he was useful for the background on Thorin and they incorporated him into the treeing of the Dwarves pretty well.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any reviews in here yet. I saw it at midnight and pretty much enjoyed the movie.

Spoiler

They stick pretty close to the main story and ended the movie about where I though they would.I like the added background on the Dwarf Kingdom and seeing the meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Their council and the scenes with Radagast are good foreshadowing for the rise of Sauron.I'm not sure yet how I feel about the introduction of the Pale Orc, but he was useful for the background on Thorin and they incorporated him into the treeing of the Dwarves pretty well.

I am seeing it tonight as I think others are in this thread. I am glad you liked the movie. I am stoked to see it. By the way did you see it in 48 or 24fps?

 

[Mjolnirs]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any reviews in here yet. I saw it at midnight and pretty much enjoyed the movie.

Spoiler

They stick pretty close to the main story and ended the movie about where I though they would.I like the added background on the Dwarf Kingdom and seeing the meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Their council and the scenes with Radagast are good foreshadowing for the rise of Sauron.I'm not sure yet how I feel about the introduction of the Pale Orc, but he was useful for the background on Thorin and they incorporated him into the treeing of the Dwarves pretty well.

I am seeing it tonight as I think others are in this thread. I am glad you liked the movie. I am stoked to see it. By the way did you see it in 48 or 24fps?Imax 3D, 24fps. 2 of the 3 theaters showing it in Charleston were 48, but not the one I went to. But, my daughter won us the tickets so I can't complain.I usually stay and watch all the credits, but my daughter was tired and ready to go so I didn't. If anyone does and there are scenes after the credits please report that. I could use that as a reason to go see it again.Also, the Star Trek teaser was very nice.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I'm surprised I haven't seen any reviews in here yet. I saw it at midnight and pretty much enjoyed the movie.

Spoiler

They stick pretty close to the main story and ended the movie about where I though they would.

I like the added background on the Dwarf Kingdom and seeing the meeting between Gandalf, Saruman, Galadriel and Elrond. Their council and the scenes with Radagast are good foreshadowing for the rise of Sauron.

I'm not sure yet how I feel about the introduction of the Pale Orc, but he was useful for the background on Thorin and they incorporated him into the treeing of the Dwarves pretty well.

Spoiler

I am seeing it tonight as I think others are in this thread. I am glad you liked the movie. I am stoked to see it.

By the way did you see it in 48 or 24fps?

Imax 3D, 24fps. 2 of the 3 theaters showing it in Charleston were 48, but not the one I went to. But, my daughter won us the tickets so I can't complain.I usually stay and watch all the credits, but my daughter was tired and ready to go so I didn't. If anyone does and there are scenes after the credits please report that. I could use that as a reason to go see it again.

Also, the Star Trek teaser was very nice.

we have been discussing this in the Star Trek thread. There are three different items, and I am unsure which one you saw

1) Teaser trailer that was released last week to the net

2) Full trailer that no one has seen yet but some are hoping it will be attached to The Hobbit

3) The first 9 minutes of the movie which was being shown in select IMAX theaters.

There are no extra scenes during or after the credits of the Hobbit according to this site

http://www.mediastinger.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-2012-no-extras-during-or-after-the-credits/

 

[Mjolnirs]

Also, the Star Trek teaser was very nice.

we have been discussing this in the Star Trek thread. There are three different items, and I am unsure which one you saw

1) Teaser trailer that was released last week to the net

2) Full trailer that no one has seen yet but some are hoping it will be attached to The Hobbit

3) The first 9 minutes of the movie which was being shown in select IMAX theaters.

There are no extra scenes during or after the credits of the Hobbit according to this site

http://www.mediastinger.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-2012-no-extras-during-or-after-the-credits/

I'm pretty sure I saw #3.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Also, the Star Trek teaser was very nice.

we have been discussing this in the Star Trek thread. There are three different items, and I am unsure which one you saw

1) Teaser trailer that was released last week to the net

2) Full trailer that no one has seen yet but some are hoping it will be attached to The Hobbit

3) The first 9 minutes of the movie which was being shown in select IMAX theaters.

There are no extra scenes during or after the credits of the Hobbit according to this site

http://www.mediastinger.com/the-hobbit-an-unexpected-journey-2012-no-extras-during-or-after-the-credits/

I'm pretty sure I saw #3.

ok thanks!You would know as the teaser trailer was a little over a minute and the full trailer would probably be 2-3 minutes, so the 9 minute beginning of the movie should really stand out from a time perspective.

Did they perhaps give away the name of the villain Cumberbatch is playing?

 

[Guinis72]

Plan on seeing it in 48fps 3D this weekend. The Star Trek teaser/trailer is a tempting reason to see it in IMAX though! I've read that the 48fps looks a little odd at first, until your brain can adjust, but if Jackson put this much energy into this format I think I'll need to check it out.

 

[Mjolnirs]

ok thanks!You would know as the teaser trailer was a little over a minute and the full trailer would probably be 2-3 minutes, so the 9 minute beginning of the movie should really stand out from a time perspective.Did they perhaps give away the name of the villain Cumberbatch is playing?

I timed it and it was around 9 minutes followed by about a minute of trailer type quick clips. They did not reveal his name, but based on the part with him and what he says I would lean in the direction of one of the theories I've heard.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Plan on seeing it in 48fps 3D this weekend. The Star Trek teaser/trailer is a tempting reason to see it in IMAX though! I've read that the 48fps looks a little odd at first, until your brain can adjust, but if Jackson put this much energy into this format I think I'll need to check it out.

I can't do 3D (get headaches sadly), but if this was available in 2D 48FPS I would try it just to see what it was like.Will be seeing it in 24 2D tonight.

 

[rick6668]

Plan on seeing it in 48fps 3D this weekend. The Star Trek teaser/trailer is a tempting reason to see it in IMAX though! I've read that the 48fps looks a little odd at first, until your brain can adjust, but if Jackson put this much energy into this format I think I'll need to check it out.

I can't do 3D (get headaches sadly), but if this was available in 2D 48FPS I would try it just to see what it was like.Will be seeing it in 24 2D tonight.

Going tonight as well with a group of friends/family. Can't wait.

 

[stbugs]

Taking my son to the IMAX 3D showing. I thought about the 48fps 3D, but was a bit worried that it might not be good for him. We saw the last Harry Potter in IMAX 3D and loved it. I'm looking forward to it and glad that I now have a buddy (my wife isn't a fantasy/sci-fi/superhero movie goer) to see movies like this. I loved the last Star Trek, so that is an added bonus if we get to see it.

 

[Andy Dufresne]

I liked it.

I can see how our ADD-afflicted society would have trouble with the pace. But I thought it was good.

 

[Fiddles]

Loved it. Riddles in the dark ruled. Goblin king was great. Loved them recoiling from biter. Forgot how amazing these movies are. Anxious to see it again.

 

[Eviloutsider]

I thought it was well done. Better than I thought it would be and as soon as you get away from the bumbling "dwarves", you are going to get better movies for 2 and 3.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Just got back. I enjoyed it thoroughly. I saw it in 24FPS and it looked very similar to LOTR. So many fun scenes and even the quiet scenes like the council meeting in Rivendel were great because you know where the story is going.

Tieing this to LOTR was very nicely done. I can't wait to see how they develop the Necromancer in the next two movies.

If things take the right course, this relatively light movie should get slowly darker as it moves on and should end with some sort of tie in to Sauron returning to Mordor in some way.

For all the complaints of how they got three movies out of one book, I was sad when this was over and can't wait for the next two.

 

[Andrew74]

Just got back. I enjoyed it. I don't see the issue with the beginning; didn't drag for me. Not sure if I liked the deviation at the end with the Orc.

 

[FinHead]

1/3 of an awesome movie, but my 4th favorite Middle Earth movie. I really enjoyed it, but it was too long and felt like I was watching an Extended Edition with extra footage.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Not sure if I liked the deviation at the end with the Orc.

Spoiler

i am not hugely familiar with the book but isn't the whole Azog the Defilier story line different from the book? ( I think it comes from the appendix).

 

[Monsieur Meursault]

Planning on seeing this with my 10yo son this weekend. My parents bought a hardback version of The Hobbit for him for christmas, and I hope that he will be so jazzed about the movie that he will be excited to read the whole story.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Planning on seeing this with my 10yo son this weekend. My parents bought a hardback version of The Hobbit for him for christmas, and I hope that he will be so jazzed about the movie that he will be excited to read the whole story.

Just make sure he understands that the movie and book are two separate entities. People I went to the movie with said the movie had a ton of scenes that were not in the book which might confuse your son. The main bad guy in the movie I don't even think is in the book.

 

[Daywalker]

For all the talk of it dragging to some wasn't that one of the complaints about FOTR? I find that one the most rewatchable of the three now.

 

[Andrew74]

Not sure if I liked the deviation at the end with the Orc.

Spoiler

i am not hugely familiar with the book but isn't the whole Azog the Defilier story line different from the book? ( I think it comes from the appendix).

Spoiler

IIRC, he is in the LOTR appendices but is killed at the battle at Moria depicted in the movie by Dain Ironfoot (not Thorin) who now heads the dwarves in the Iron Mountains. Guess I shouldn't be surprised at "dramatic near death scene" with Thorin since PJ did the same with Aragorn in LOTR.

 

[oukurt]

Two Films for the one book? Wow, that is gonna be an involving storyline. Although the hobbit has enough substance to maybe pull it off. Always liked it better than the LTR trilogy.

 

[geoff8695]

1/3 of an awesome movie, but my 4th favorite Middle Earth movie. I really enjoyed it, but it was too long and felt like I was watching an Extended Edition with extra footage.

This is fairly accurate IMO, although I'm a big enough fanboy that the length of the film didn't bother me in the least. I would have welcomed more...

Not as awesome as LotR, but if you're a fan of Middle Earth and would like to see more of it put on the big screen - then this is a MUST SEE.

 

[NewlyRetired]

For all the talk of it dragging to some wasn't that one of the complaints about FOTR? I find that one the most rewatchable of the three now.

While hard for many including myself, I really want to see all 8 hours before I make a final decision on how much I like the movie. I may like the first movie more or less based on what comes in the next two

 

[Tusken Raider]

I'd love to hear some opinions of the HFR 3D vs regular 3D crowd. Mrs TR bought tickets for Monday for the regular 3D viewing, I'm tempted to return them and go for the HFR 3D instead. If I'm doing 3D (not a big fan, though Avatar looked cool), I wanna go all in.

 

[cstu]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

 

[Maelstrom]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

 

[cstu]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

 

[bigbottom]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

His stance does seem very weird.

 

[cstu]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

His stance does seem very weird.

I guess I don't love these movies as much as other people. Once is good enough for me.

 

[Maelstrom]

I'd love to hear some opinions of the HFR 3D vs regular 3D crowd. Mrs TR bought tickets for Monday for the regular 3D viewing, I'm tempted to return them and go for the HFR 3D instead. If I'm doing 3D (not a big fan, though Avatar looked cool), I wanna go all in.

I switched my tickets from the 3D IMAX to the 3D HFR today (I originally bought the IMAX thinking it was the HFR, oops). I personally liked the HFR "effect", if you will, I thought it was like watching a higher resolution, in effect. My wife dislike it though. I think the best way I can describe it is to compare to the difference between regular and HDR pictures. I really like HDR pictures, but there are people that think they are horrid.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

His stance does seem very weird.

I guess I don't love these movies as much as other people. Once is good enough for me.

No biggie that you don't love them. Different strokes and all. My daughter and I can't wait for our next marathon because now we will have 4 movies to watch for Hobbit 2 and then 5 movies to watch for Hobbit 3.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Of the 7 people who went to the movies with me we all felt that both Ian Holm and Elijah Wood looked the most different from the original movies while Cate Blanchette does not look like she has aged a day.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

His stance does seem very weird.

I guess I don't love these movies as much as other people. Once is good enough for me.

A good (or even great) movie, is just that. I don't understand why you would make a stance to not see it.If you like movies... and you enjoy watching good quality movies... very odd indeed. It'd be like not seeing Empire Strikes Back, or Godfather 2 -- because you knew more offerings were coming.

 

[Psychopav]

1/3 of an awesome movie, but my 4th favorite Middle Earth movie. I really enjoyed it, but it was too long and felt like I was watching an Extended Edition with extra footage.

This is fairly accurate IMO, although I'm a big enough fanboy that the length of the film didn't bother me in the least. I would have welcomed more...

Not as awesome as LotR, but if you're a fan of Middle Earth and would like to see more of it put on the big screen - then this is a MUST SEE.

Definitely fit right in with LotR 'feel' and I'm glad we saw it in 24 fps to keep continuity with the trilogy.

I said back then that what the LotR lost in depth by moving to the big screen, if done right the Hobbit could gain. I think PJ's doing that very effectively and I really couldn't have been more pleased with the movie. It would never be LotR but the showdown with the necromancer is going to be outstanding (I assume that will come in film 2 given everything that happens in the book subsequent to that).

Once again I wasn't thrilled with some of the unnecessary liberties that Jackson took with the story, but I find myself not caring as much - defiling the Hobbit is only a minor sin in my mind I guess lol.

For those who say the 3 movie thing is a money grab, I'd say you're right, but it's kind of the perfect storm of studios with $$ in their eyes along with filmmakers truly enamored with the subject. I wish more meaningful films could be exploited like this (or the Narnia stories). Instead we're soon to be treated to Jack and the Beanstalk and Brothers Grimm reboots.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I have a question on something that confused me in the movie

Spoiler

Balin tells the history of how Azgog the Defilier kills Thorin's grandfather during a battle at Moria (I think). Then it is stated that the dwarves battled back and defeated the Orcs. Did the Dwarves retake Moria at this time and then lose it again in the coming 60 years before the Fellowship comes to Moria in which Gimli finds the dwarves all killed?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have a question on something that confused me in the movie

Spoiler

Balin tells the history of how Azgog the Defilier kills Thorin's grandfather during a battle at Moria (I think). Then it is stated that the dwarves battled back and defeated the Orcs. Did the Dwarves retake Moria at this time and then lose it again in the coming 60 years before the Fellowship comes to Moria in which Gimli finds the dwarves all killed?

Major spoilers ahead...

Spoiler

The older son Thror (TA 2542 - TA 2790) fled with his people to the Lonely Mountain.

For 200 years the wealth and fame of Lonely Mountain grew until the coming of Smaug the Golden in TA 2770. Thror managed to escape through a back door with his family but most of the Dwarves of Lonely Mountain were slain by the dragon and the wealth of Durin’s folk was lost. Some time later Thror gave his son Thrain II (TA 2644 - TA 2858) the ring of power and started wandering the world with his friend Nar. He ended up in Khazad-dûm where he was murdered and mutilated by the orc king Azog.

This was the catalyst of a war that was called the War of Dwarves and Orcs. The war lasted seven years and ended in the Battle of Azanulbizar where Dain Ironfoot (TA 2767 - TA 3019) killed Azog. In the years to come the ring slowly poisoned Thrain’s heart with greed and in 2845 Thrain set out alone to reclaim Erebor. This resulted in him being captured by Sauron and he died in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.

In 2941 Thorin Oakenshield son of Thrain, 12 other Dwarves, and the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, set out to reclaim Erebor.

and...

Spoiler

Battle of Azanulbizar

The battle was fought in the year TA 2799 at the eastern gate of Moria between the Dwarves of all houses, and the Orcs of the Misty Mountains.

It was the greatest battle of the War of Dwarves and Orcs, and was a decisive victory for the dwarves. However, the battle had claimed the lives of many; including Frerin the second son of Thráin II, and the younger brother of Thorin Oakenshield. His kinsman Fundin also fell. Náin son of Grór was slain in a fight with Azog the Goblin right outside the East Gate. Azog was then slain by Náin's son Dáin Ironfoot.

Thráin II, heir of Durin, wished to enter and reclaim Moria after the War. However, the Dwarves of Durin's folk were too few and the Dwarves of other six houses refused to get involved with Durin's Bane.

The aftermath of the battle and the overall war resulted in heavy losses for all the dwarves involved, but virtually all of the Orcs infesting the Misty Mountains were destroyed, leaving only a handful left. This resulted in the Misty Mountains being relatively safer for the next two centuries.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I have a question on something that confused me in the movie

Spoiler

Balin tells the history of how Azgog the Defilier kills Thorin's grandfather during a battle at Moria (I think). Then it is stated that the dwarves battled back and defeated the Orcs. Did the Dwarves retake Moria at this time and then lose it again in the coming 60 years before the Fellowship comes to Moria in which Gimli finds the dwarves all killed?

Major spoilers ahead...

Spoiler

The older son Thror (TA 2542 - TA 2790) fled with his people to the Lonely Mountain.

For 200 years the wealth and fame of Lonely Mountain grew until the coming of Smaug the Golden in TA 2770. Thror managed to escape through a back door with his family but most of the Dwarves of Lonely Mountain were slain by the dragon and the wealth of Durin’s folk was lost. Some time later Thror gave his son Thrain II (TA 2644 - TA 2858) the ring of power and started wandering the world with his friend Nar. He ended up in Khazad-dûm where he was murdered and mutilated by the orc king Azog.

This was the catalyst of a war that was called the War of Dwarves and Orcs. The war lasted seven years and ended in the Battle of Azanulbizar where Dain Ironfoot (TA 2767 - TA 3019) killed Azog. In the years to come the ring slowly poisoned Thrain’s heart with greed and in 2845 Thrain set out alone to reclaim Erebor. This resulted in him being captured by Sauron and he died in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.

In 2941 Thorin Oakenshield son of Thrain, 12 other Dwarves, and the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, set out to reclaim Erebor.

and...

Spoiler

Battle of Azanulbizar

The battle was fought in the year TA 2799 at the eastern gate of Moria between the Dwarves of all houses, and the Orcs of the Misty Mountains.

It was the greatest battle of the War of Dwarves and Orcs, and was a decisive victory for the dwarves. However, the battle had claimed the lives of many; including Frerin the second son of Thráin II, and the younger brother of Thorin Oakenshield. His kinsman Fundin also fell. Náin son of Grór was slain in a fight with Azog the Goblin right outside the East Gate. Azog was then slain by Náin's son Dáin Ironfoot.

Thráin II, heir of Durin, wished to enter and reclaim Moria after the War. However, the Dwarves of Durin's folk were too few and the Dwarves of other six houses refused to get involved with Durin's Bane.

The aftermath of the battle and the overall war resulted in heavy losses for all the dwarves involved, but virtually all of the Orcs infesting the Misty Mountains were destroyed, leaving only a handful left. This resulted in the Misty Mountains being relatively safer for the next two centuries.

Oh good stuff, thanks! Since the movies don't follow the appendices chronology exactly I keep getting a bit confused. So from the movie perspective when the Misty Mountains remained safe, Ghimli's cousins people then take over Moria before losing it again shortly before Fellowship?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I have a question on something that confused me in the movie

Spoiler

Balin tells the history of how Azgog the Defilier kills Thorin's grandfather during a battle at Moria (I think). Then it is stated that the dwarves battled back and defeated the Orcs. Did the Dwarves retake Moria at this time and then lose it again in the coming 60 years before the Fellowship comes to Moria in which Gimli finds the dwarves all killed?

Spoiler

Major spoilers ahead...The older son Thror (TA 2542 - TA 2790) fled with his people to the Lonely Mountain.

For 200 years the wealth and fame of Lonely Mountain grew until the coming of Smaug the Golden in TA 2770. Thror managed to escape through a back door with his family but most of the Dwarves of Lonely Mountain were slain by the dragon and the wealth of Durin’s folk was lost. Some time later Thror gave his son Thrain II (TA 2644 - TA 2858) the ring of power and started wandering the world with his friend Nar. He ended up in Khazad-dûm where he was murdered and mutilated by the orc king Azog.

This was the catalyst of a war that was called the War of Dwarves and Orcs. The war lasted seven years and ended in the Battle of Azanulbizar where Dain Ironfoot (TA 2767 - TA 3019) killed Azog. In the years to come the ring slowly poisoned Thrain’s heart with greed and in 2845 Thrain set out alone to reclaim Erebor. This resulted in him being captured by Sauron and he died in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.

In 2941 Thorin Oakenshield son of Thrain, 12 other Dwarves, and the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, set out to reclaim Erebor.

and...

Spoiler

Battle of Azanulbizar

The battle was fought in the year TA 2799 at the eastern gate of Moria between the Dwarves of all houses, and the Orcs of the Misty Mountains.

It was the greatest battle of the War of Dwarves and Orcs, and was a decisive victory for the dwarves. However, the battle had claimed the lives of many; including Frerin the second son of Thráin II, and the younger brother of Thorin Oakenshield. His kinsman Fundin also fell. Náin son of Grór was slain in a fight with Azog the Goblin right outside the East Gate. Azog was then slain by Náin's son Dáin Ironfoot.

Thráin II, heir of Durin, wished to enter and reclaim Moria after the War. However, the Dwarves of Durin's folk were too few and the Dwarves of other six houses refused to get involved with Durin's Bane.

The aftermath of the battle and the overall war resulted in heavy losses for all the dwarves involved, but virtually all of the Orcs infesting the Misty Mountains were destroyed, leaving only a handful left. This resulted in the Misty Mountains being relatively safer for the next two centuries.

Oh good stuff, thanks! Since the movies don't follow the appendices chronology exactly I keep getting a bit confused. So from the movie perspective when the Misty Mountains remained safe, Ghimli's cousins people then take over Moria before losing it again shortly before Fellowship?

The very old Dwarf you see leads it... Balin. Thats his tomb in Moria that Gimlis stand atop and fights from. And then Gimli picks up Balins Double Axe and uses it the rest of the LOTR movies.

Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws blood!

 

[NewlyRetired]

I have a question on something that confused me in the movie

Spoiler

Balin tells the history of how Azgog the Defilier kills Thorin's grandfather during a battle at Moria (I think). Then it is stated that the dwarves battled back and defeated the Orcs. Did the Dwarves retake Moria at this time and then lose it again in the coming 60 years before the Fellowship comes to Moria in which Gimli finds the dwarves all killed?

Spoiler

Major spoilers ahead...The older son Thror (TA 2542 - TA 2790) fled with his people to the Lonely Mountain.

For 200 years the wealth and fame of Lonely Mountain grew until the coming of Smaug the Golden in TA 2770. Thror managed to escape through a back door with his family but most of the Dwarves of Lonely Mountain were slain by the dragon and the wealth of Durin’s folk was lost. Some time later Thror gave his son Thrain II (TA 2644 - TA 2858) the ring of power and started wandering the world with his friend Nar. He ended up in Khazad-dûm where he was murdered and mutilated by the orc king Azog.

This was the catalyst of a war that was called the War of Dwarves and Orcs. The war lasted seven years and ended in the Battle of Azanulbizar where Dain Ironfoot (TA 2767 - TA 3019) killed Azog. In the years to come the ring slowly poisoned Thrain’s heart with greed and in 2845 Thrain set out alone to reclaim Erebor. This resulted in him being captured by Sauron and he died in the dungeons of Dol Guldur.

In 2941 Thorin Oakenshield son of Thrain, 12 other Dwarves, and the hobbit Bilbo Baggins, set out to reclaim Erebor.

and...

Spoiler

Battle of Azanulbizar

The battle was fought in the year TA 2799 at the eastern gate of Moria between the Dwarves of all houses, and the Orcs of the Misty Mountains.

It was the greatest battle of the War of Dwarves and Orcs, and was a decisive victory for the dwarves. However, the battle had claimed the lives of many; including Frerin the second son of Thráin II, and the younger brother of Thorin Oakenshield. His kinsman Fundin also fell. Náin son of Grór was slain in a fight with Azog the Goblin right outside the East Gate. Azog was then slain by Náin's son Dáin Ironfoot.

Thráin II, heir of Durin, wished to enter and reclaim Moria after the War. However, the Dwarves of Durin's folk were too few and the Dwarves of other six houses refused to get involved with Durin's Bane.

The aftermath of the battle and the overall war resulted in heavy losses for all the dwarves involved, but virtually all of the Orcs infesting the Misty Mountains were destroyed, leaving only a handful left. This resulted in the Misty Mountains being relatively safer for the next two centuries.

Oh good stuff, thanks! Since the movies don't follow the appendices chronology exactly I keep getting a bit confused. So from the movie perspective when the Misty Mountains remained safe, Ghimli's cousins people then take over Moria before losing it again shortly before Fellowship?

The very old Dwarf you see leads it... Balin. Thats his tomb in Moria that Gimlis stand atop and fights from. And then Gimli picks up Balins Double Axe and uses it the rest of the LOTR movies.

Let them come! There is one dwarf yet in Moria that still draws blood!

I never made the connection! I need to wake my daughter up and tell her this .

Awesome!!

 

[cstu]

Am I the only one refusing to see the movie until the third one is out?

Yes. That is ... silly.

Here's my reasoning...these movies are extremely long - when the next one comes out I'll have to rewatch the first since it will have been a long time since I've seen it. Then when the last movie comes out I'll have to watch the first two again.

So you'll get to watch a good movie three times instead of once. Why is that a problem?

His stance does seem very weird.

I guess I don't love these movies as much as other people. Once is good enough for me.

A good (or even great) movie, is just that. I don't understand why you would make a stance to not see it.If you like movies... and you enjoy watching good quality movies... very odd indeed. It'd be like not seeing Empire Strikes Back, or Godfather 2 -- because you knew more offerings were coming.

There were three years between ESB and Jedi. Also, for me those are movies you can see over and over again. These movies are long epics that don't hold to repeat viewing (for me). I watched the extended versions of LOTR when they came on on Blu Ray and it was still too soon for me to really get into them. BTW I'm going to see these in a theater, but not until a year and half from now.

 

[Tusken Raider]

I'd love to hear some opinions of the HFR 3D vs regular 3D crowd. Mrs TR bought tickets for Monday for the regular 3D viewing, I'm tempted to return them and go for the HFR 3D instead. If I'm doing 3D (not a big fan, though Avatar looked cool), I wanna go all in.

I switched my tickets from the 3D IMAX to the 3D HFR today (I originally bought the IMAX thinking it was the HFR, oops). I personally liked the HFR "effect", if you will, I thought it was like watching a higher resolution, in effect. My wife dislike it though. I think the best way I can describe it is to compare to the difference between regular and HDR pictures. I really like HDR pictures, but there are people that think they are horrid.

Good to hear you liked it. I've been reading reviews of the HFR 3D version & am seeing mixed things. The positives say it's very HD, clean, and totally gives the CGI that extra pop to make it more lifelike than ever. They also say it really enhances the 3D effect more smoothly, and even though it takes your eyes a few minutes to adjust to the clarity, you get used to it. The critics of HFR say it's "too real looking," "like a video camera or soap opera," and that the 48fps takes away from a lot of the movie magic, in that you can see more flaws in the props, sets, and suspension of disbelief. They also claim that it's enhanced so much that it tends to separate the real characters from the CGI background, while the standard 24fps version blends them together better. Just curious, what did your wife not like about it? Mine is worried she may get motion sickness, but I read a review from a woman who claimed she gets migraines/motion sick from regular 3D, but the HFR version didn't effect her negatively at all. Will post my thoughts on this after we see it on Monday...

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey drew large crowds on Friday and set a new December opening day record with an estimated 37.5 million from 4,045 locations.

The previous December record-holder was The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which debuted to $34.5 million on a Wednesday in 2003.

ftr: the top two all-time are...

1 Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2.. $91,071,119... F 7/15/11... $381,011,219

2 Marvel's The Avengers..................................... $80,813,985... F 5/04/12... $623,357,910

 

[Maelstrom]

I'd love to hear some opinions of the HFR 3D vs regular 3D crowd. Mrs TR bought tickets for Monday for the regular 3D viewing, I'm tempted to return them and go for the HFR 3D instead. If I'm doing 3D (not a big fan, though Avatar looked cool), I wanna go all in.

I switched my tickets from the 3D IMAX to the 3D HFR today (I originally bought the IMAX thinking it was the HFR, oops). I personally liked the HFR "effect", if you will, I thought it was like watching a higher resolution, in effect. My wife dislike it though. I think the best way I can describe it is to compare to the difference between regular and HDR pictures. I really like HDR pictures, but there are people that think they are horrid.

Good to hear you liked it. I've been reading reviews of the HFR 3D version & am seeing mixed things. The positives say it's very HD, clean, and totally gives the CGI that extra pop to make it more lifelike than ever. They also say it really enhances the 3D effect more smoothly, and even though it takes your eyes a few minutes to adjust to the clarity, you get used to it. The critics of HFR say it's "too real looking," "like a video camera or soap opera," and that the 48fps takes away from a lot of the movie magic, in that you can see more flaws in the props, sets, and suspension of disbelief. They also claim that it's enhanced so much that it tends to separate the real characters from the CGI background, while the standard 24fps version blends them together better. Just curious, what did your wife not like about it? Mine is worried she may get motion sickness, but I read a review from a woman who claimed she gets migraines/motion sick from regular 3D, but the HFR version didn't effect her negatively at all. Will post my thoughts on this after we see it on Monday...

She didn't like the "too real" look. The funny thing is, she said afterwards she wouldn't have known what it was she didn't like if she hadn't read a review that described it as too real, she just would have said the graphics didn't look right. I definitely agree that the HFR makes the CGI and 3D really stand out, and I thought it made both of those things better. 3D has always felt a little bit "blurry" (for lack of a more descriptive word) to me, and this felt very crisp and lifelike. I was kinda looking for prop flaws for a bit until I got sucked into the story, and didn't really catch any, but I'm often oblivious to those things anyways.

 

[inca911]

My impressions:

Spoiler

I'm a big Tolkien fan, and I didn't mind the artistic license that was taken to fill in the story some (e.g., Azog chasing the group). There was excellent scenery and great imagery in many, many shots. The quieter the film was, the more I seemed to like it. The riddle game was outstanding. That said, I unfortunately found myself simply losing interest at many parts of the story. Many scenes were overlong, with way too much CGI (like bad Transformers kind of bad CGI). I started looking around the theater wondering if anyone was actually enjoying some of these parts. Most looked equally as bored as I was. There was a "Phantom Menace" feeling at way too many points in the film, especially for a PG-13 rating. Some of the dwarves seem intended as a type of comic relief, but the relief is more like a breath of stale air than anything fresh and pleasant. Nice makeup, but little substance. The idea of adding Radagast is a fine concept, but he was way too much like Jar Jar Binks for my tastes. The guy is the same race as Gandalf, Saruman, the Balrog, and Sauron. You certainly wouldn't know it from this film. The stone giant scene with the moving mountainsides reached a point of stupidity that was only matched (and perhaps surpassed) by the equally unrealistic bridge scenes in the goblin mines. Even the trolls were forgetful. I liked seeing them in Followship, frozen while Frodo lay injured, more than I did in this film. Some of the added back-story from Unfinished Tales was excellent to add (and I'm hoping there will be more Sauron/Necromancer in the next film), but I found myself not very interested in going "back again" to see it anytime soon. I'm hoping the second film will be significantly better, but overall this felt like watered down lemonade--slightly refreshing, but still weak and just off. I'd give this is about a 6 out of ten, and 5 of that is nearly guaranteed based on the source material. Call me unimpressed.

 

[Usual21]

I fell asleep during the movie. Twice. After the 1st hour, I was fine.

 

[EYLive]

I think the addition of the pale orc was a nice way to make this first movie stand on it's own. It needed a solid antagonist for drama before we get to the main bad guy.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I think the addition of the pale orc was a nice way to make this first movie stand on it's own. It needed a solid antagonist for drama before we get to the main bad guy.

I figure Smaug must be the main battle in #2. The Necromancer will be expanded in #2 and be built up for #3 where the battle of the 5 Armies will be a big part of number 3. I can't guess where they are going to battle again with Azog again but I expect we have not seen the last of him.