Peter Jackson to make The Hobbit (3 Viewers)

[netnalp]

Saw it in IMAX 3-D in Lansing, MI. I don't know if it was 24FPS or 48. I'm guessing 24 because I didn't notice a difference. Was the first 3-D movie I've watched other than the 3-D stuff at Disney World. It appears I'm one of those that gets a headache from them. I wonder if it is just strain on the eye muscles and is something that can go away once the eyes get used to it.

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

 

[Tusken Raider]

I saw the 3D HFR version today, and overall enjoyed the film. I first read The Hobbit & LOTR when I was 10 or so, and loved the 1977 Rankin/Bass animated version, so I was pretty hyped to see this. Since a lot of hype has gone into the HFR vs. "regular" versions, I'll offer my opinions on the HFR viewing.

I'm not a big 3D fan - I think it's gimmicky and cool for a few minutes, until you forget you're watching 3D and enjoying a film for its substance. That being said, think of HFR 3D as watching a big screen film in high definition. VERY vivid in parts, especially close ups. While there were very few "jump out at you" moments, the HFR 3D added a LOT of depth to the screen. No motion blur that I was able to see, and I didn't ever feel like I was watching a film with the dreaded "soap opera effect" like some critics have written, nor did it have that "home video camera" feel. Just very high def, and I think that was Jackson's intent. I also didn't get the impression the HD showed prop or set flaws either - this was Middle Earth in HD.

Gollum CGI was amazing, while some of the other creatures should have been less CGI, and more actors in costumes, IMO. As for the storyline:

Spoiler

The opening battle scene flashback was very cool, and reminiscient of the flashback battle in FOTR. Azog was understandable as a villain, but I never felt like he was very threatening. He looked too CGI, & I felt he would have been better played by an actor in heavy makeup like the orcs in LOTR (even though he had an actor stand in, like Gollum.) The dwarves' introduction and scene in the Shire was great. I have to admit the Troll scene was pretty disappointing, and that the banter between them & Bilbo could have been played a LOT better. I agree with Inca911 - I liked their scene in FOTR much better when they were stone backdrops. The goblin scene in the mountain was utterly forgetful, and WTF was with the Goblin King's voice? He might as well have high-fived Gandalf at the end of that scene. I thought this scene played out much better in the 1977 version - those goblins scared the crap outta me when I was a kid. Loved seeing the council scene in Rivendell with Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, & Saruman. And Riddles in the Dark was fantastic. Seeing the Lonely Mountain in the distance at the end, as well as the first glimpse of Smaug, was a great way to end the film.

All in all, I'd give it a 7.5 or 8 overall. Next time I see it I'll do so in 2D, not because I disliked the 3D version, but that I didn't feel it added to the viewing so much. And for those wanting to compare it to LOTR, think about this: it's hard to remember that The Hobbit films aren't intended to be as dark as the LOTR films - they're an "adventure."

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Just saw it tonite, with the wife. She did not want it to end, wanted the movie to be even longer.

She has never read the books but loved LoTR movies.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Thought it was terrific movie offering, even though it did have some parts I did not care much for.

Spoiler

The entire prologue and gathering in Bilbos house was fun and enjoyable.

The pre-Rivendale travels were less appealing. Troll secenes I found weak, and the Warg fights before Rivendale as well as escape tunnel

to Imladris were meh at best. And at worst they hurt the believability/immersion aspect.

Radagast however, I had no issue with. He was as he was supposed to be and adds plenty to the film.

And the creative license taken with him and Dol Goldur were solid additions.

I thought they nailed the "movie-magic" aspect of the goblin tunnels, even though the books never went so far/descriptive in the story telling. But you almost have to have a sprinkle of this in todays movie business reality.

The Goblin-Kings voice and linguistics, as others have stated, really was poorly done. He looked good, but his talking did not fit at all.

Gollum and Bilbo were spot on, and maybe even better then hoped. Peter Jackson has done Gollum exceptional justice throughout these films.

I would have preferred the Eagles noticing the orcs/wargs (much as they did in the book) crossing the mountains and adding some realism and continuity. Maybe even have some orc hunters being scouted/hunted from a birds eye view at some point.

The one thing I believe will be overlooked and most unfairly skipped... is just how good Bilbo is. The character, the story and the actor.

I can already see critics and judges just accepting it without realizing or pontificating on what a terrific movie character they have viewed.

Im a big fan.

 

[Maelstrom]

I agree with much of this:

http://cianclarke.com/blog/?p=261

The Uncanny Valley is the trough that exists where a scene is so close to human likeness, or in this case 'real life' likeness, that it appears unrealistic. It's so close it's uncanny, and our level of trust in the scene decreases, along with our affinity. This cliff which affinity falls off is the Uncanny Valley. The reason action packed scenes and panning scenery all retain their authenticity is these scenes are unfamiliar to us. I've never encountered a battlefield of orcs, and I've never flown across the landscape hugging the ground in a helicopter. We have no prior experience which tells what these scenarios should look like.

It's only when we see something familiar – the crowded marketplace, a person walking through a forest, all these scenes we've experienced frequently first hand, that we begin to feel uncomfortable.

Full text of article:

Spoiler

On The Hobbit, the Uncanny Valley, and what it means for 3D

Posted on December 22, 2012 by Cian Clarke

It's great when terms from your computer science education come up in day to day life. Tonight, I saw The Hobbit for the first time. I typically despise 3D films – I find the effect detracts from any cinematic creativity, distracts from screenplay and creates a novelty crutch for film makers to lean on. The Hobbit is the first 3D film I've ever seen that doesn't suffer from this phenomenon.

The visuals in The Hobbit are stunning. Set in New Zealand, the epic scenery comes as no surprise – but just how much the 3D format adds to this enjoyment has to be seen to be appreciated. I've read that the 48fps format makes 3D more immersive and engaging, and having seen it first hand, for me this seems to be the making of 3D as a medium.

For those of you already familiar with the concept of 48fps movies, skip a paragraph – here's what it means in layman's terms:

Regular films are shown in 24 fps, or 'frames per second' – that is, 24 still images packed into every second make up the movie. The Hobbit is the first move to be shot and projected (in good cinemas..) at 48fps – double the normal speed. This difference is still perceivable to the human eye.

The vast majority of scenes in The Hobbit look spectacular. Cameras panning through scenery, orc-filled battlefields and vast citadels build into cliffs all prove incredibly immersive in 48fps 3D.

What's interesting to observe is how the more familiar scenes look 'a little off'. Pressing through a busteling marketplace, walking along a grassy path, a character standing in the doorway – none of it seems quite right.

But what's happening here? Why do some scenes look so incredibly immersive and real, and some just look – well, they look plain uncanny.

Enter the "uncanny valley". I first came across this term in the context of computer animation, but I think the theory also applies here.

http://cianclarke.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/uncanny-valley1.jpg' alt='a>'>

The Uncanny Valley applied to some recent 3D releases

The Uncanny Valley is the trough that exists where a scene is so close to human likeness, or in this case 'real life' likeness, that it appears unrealistic. It's so close it's uncanny, and our level of trust in the scene decreases, along with our affinity. This cliff which affinity falls off is the Uncanny Valley.

The reason action packed scenes and panning scenery all retain their authenticity is these scenes are unfamiliar to us. I've never encountered a battlefield of orcs, and I've never flown across the landscape hugging the ground in a helicopter. We have no prior experience which tells what these scenarios should look like.

It's only when we see something familiar – the crowded marketplace, a person walking through a forest, all these scenes we've experienced frequently first hand, that we begin to feel uncomfortable.

The Hobbit in 3D can best be described as the reptile cabinet at the zoo. There's clearly a large 2D plane which distorts our viewport, but the cinema screen has an almost translucent quality. Cinema has almost transcended this 3D barrier, and conquering the Uncanny Valley is the last remaining obstacle.

 

[tri-man 47]

Saw the movie in 3D early on Christmas Eve (only available showing before noon). Very enjoyable adventure, which is pretty much what it was. I really liked Bilbo Baggins - the part was played extremely well. It was interesting to see get an early glimpse of things and people introduced later in the chronology (but in the earlier movies). Rivendale looked incredible. A bit of complaint - some of the scenes were borderline slapstick comedy ...too cutesy.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Saw the movie in 3D early on Christmas Eve (only available showing before noon). Very enjoyable adventure, which is pretty much what it was. I really liked Bilbo Baggins - the part was played extremely well. It was interesting to see get an early glimpse of things and people introduced later in the chronology (but in the earlier movies). Rivendale looked incredible. A bit of complaint - some of the scenes were borderline slapstick comedy ...too cutesy.

tim from the office was perfect, but I was such a big office fan I couldn't really disassociate him from tim.I thought teh movie was alright, we went to this theatre with a bar and had a pitcher of margaritas, so maybe that helped, but I can't say it was all that great.I'm not knocking it, but maybe I've just grown too old for that stuff, or maybe some of it was a little over the top.I really liked teh hobbit when I was younger, and this felt kind of disneyfied.

 

[prosopis]

Saw it today and I loved it. Ended just in time as my 7 year old was starting to squirm from to much soda. I saw it in regular 2D. When does the next installment come out?

 

[cstu]

Saw it today and I loved it. Ended just in time as my 7 year old was starting to squirm from to much soda. I saw it in regular 2D. When does the next installment come out?

December 13, 2013.

 

[prosopis]

Saw it today and I loved it. Ended just in time as my 7 year old was starting to squirm from to much soda. I saw it in regular 2D. When does the next installment come out?

December 13, 2013.

That is to long a wait.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Saw it today and I loved it. Ended just in time as my 7 year old was starting to squirm from to much soda. I saw it in regular 2D. When does the next installment come out?

December 13, 2013.

That is to long a wait.

for me too! Luckily number 3 is only a 6 month wait after number 2.I read an interview with Ian McKellon recently and he mentioned that there was going to be an extended edition of the movie for DVD/Blu Ray when the time comes.For LOTR, if memory serves, the theatrical version came to DVD first followed a few months later by the extended editions.I am not expecting there to be as much stuff added as in the LOTR movies for the EE's, but any more Middle Earth is good for me!

 

[Eviloutsider]

Just saw it tonite, with the wife. She did not want it to end, wanted the movie to be even longer.

She has never read the books but loved LoTR movies.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Thought it was terrific movie offering, even though it did have some parts I did not care much for.

Spoiler

The entire prologue and gathering in Bilbos house was fun and enjoyable.

The pre-Rivendale travels were less appealing. Troll secenes I found weak, and the Warg fights before Rivendale as well as escape tunnel

to Imladris were meh at best. And at worst they hurt the believability/immersion aspect.

Radagast however, I had no issue with. He was as he was supposed to be and adds plenty to the film.

And the creative license taken with him and Dol Goldur were solid additions.

I thought they nailed the "movie-magic" aspect of the goblin tunnels, even though the books never went so far/descriptive in the story telling. But you almost have to have a sprinkle of this in todays movie business reality.

The Goblin-Kings voice and linguistics, as others have stated, really was poorly done. He looked good, but his talking did not fit at all.

Gollum and Bilbo were spot on, and maybe even better then hoped. Peter Jackson has done Gollum exceptional justice throughout these films.

I would have preferred the Eagles noticing the orcs/wargs (much as they did in the book) crossing the mountains and adding some realism and continuity. Maybe even have some orc hunters being scouted/hunted from a birds eye view at some point.

The one thing I believe will be overlooked and most unfairly skipped... is just how good Bilbo is. The character, the story and the actor.

I can already see critics and judges just accepting it without realizing or pontificating on what a terrific movie character they have viewed.

Im a big fan.

To your last point, I honestly hope that the guy who played Bilbo, the name escapes me, should be nominated for an Academy Award. I know it's not a serious film or the last of the series, but he was fantastic. Everything I could have hoped of in Bilbo.

 

[Thunderlips]

Just finished it. 3D HFR IMAX version.....

+'s

Martin Freeman was near perfect as Bilbo.

The Riddles in the Dark scene and Gollum were great.

For the most part, the dwarves worked....but all in all they were all good.

The Dwarven Kingdom and Smaug prologue were good additions as were the start of the White Council.

When the HFR and 3D worked....it was amazing. It does suffer (from being too realistic) during close ups....but the Goblin Lair, the Trees at the end, Rivendell and the Warg battle (particularly the far away shots) were great.

-

It felt 20 minutes too long....particularly post -hire/ pre-Rivendell.

Radgast was a little too..........Radgasty and contributed to the extended feel of that dragging time frame.

Tiny too much bathroom and slapstick humor with the dwarves.

I think they went a little too much to the well on reusing the different characters music from the First Three. I realize that in the end, the two trilogies are going to click with each other as one big movie....but they could have mixed it up a bit.

 

[NewlyRetired]

Just saw it tonite, with the wife. She did not want it to end, wanted the movie to be even longer.

She has never read the books but loved LoTR movies.

I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Thought it was terrific movie offering, even though it did have some parts I did not care much for.

Spoiler

The entire prologue and gathering in Bilbos house was fun and enjoyable.

The pre-Rivendale travels were less appealing. Troll secenes I found weak, and the Warg fights before Rivendale as well as escape tunnel

to Imladris were meh at best. And at worst they hurt the believability/immersion aspect.

Radagast however, I had no issue with. He was as he was supposed to be and adds plenty to the film.

And the creative license taken with him and Dol Goldur were solid additions.

I thought they nailed the "movie-magic" aspect of the goblin tunnels, even though the books never went so far/descriptive in the story telling. But you almost have to have a sprinkle of this in todays movie business reality.

The Goblin-Kings voice and linguistics, as others have stated, really was poorly done. He looked good, but his talking did not fit at all.

Gollum and Bilbo were spot on, and maybe even better then hoped. Peter Jackson has done Gollum exceptional justice throughout these films.

I would have preferred the Eagles noticing the orcs/wargs (much as they did in the book) crossing the mountains and adding some realism and continuity. Maybe even have some orc hunters being scouted/hunted from a birds eye view at some point.

The one thing I believe will be overlooked and most unfairly skipped... is just how good Bilbo is. The character, the story and the actor.

I can already see critics and judges just accepting it without realizing or pontificating on what a terrific movie character they have viewed.

Im a big fan.

To your last point, I honestly hope that the guy who played Bilbo, the name escapes me, should be nominated for an Academy Award. I know it's not a serious film or the last of the series, but he was fantastic. Everything I could have hoped of in Bilbo.I believe I am correct in saying that none of the 3 first LOTR movies receive academy awards nominations (much less wins) for any acting category.I think many were disappointed when Sean Astin did not get nominated for Return of the King.

 

[Dexter]

I guess I'm in the minority here and didn't care for it as much. To me LOTR and the Hobbit are movies about a journey. The journey is the story and you don't need all the action that was presented. The story suffered from all the fluff that was added. A good example of this is every time they tell a story there's a cut scene to the action. By cutting away from the group you lose that moment sitting around a camp fire where they are building their bond. Instead it's more orc and goblin slaying.

When you read the book you get a sense of the journey. You feel the cold and the hunger the group is suffering from and I didn't get that from the movie.

For example when they are captured by the Goblin King they spend a lot of time in that mountain. I think Bilbo is stuck in there for 3 days and his escape from the mountain in the book was a lot harder than in the movie. Hell in the movie he just walks out.

They also seemed to throw in a bunch of crap just to remind everyone the connection to LOTR.

I guess it wasn't a bad movie, but I left disappointed and felt like the movie had two directors. One trying to tell a story about a journey and the other who was shooting an action flick.

 

[Kraft...]

I enjoyed it, only issues were the Jar Jar Binks type moments(Trolls, Goblin King and Radagast)

 

[Andy Dufresne]

Hey look. I know Jar Jar Binks. Jar Jar Binks is an enemy of mine.

The Trolls, Goblin King and Radagast are no Jar Jar Binks.

 

[Todem]

Taking my son tomorrow to the IMAX to see the flick.

Can't wait. I know we are going to love it.

 

[Maelstrom]

I guess I'm in the minority here and didn't care for it as much. To me LOTR and the Hobbit are movies about a journey. The journey is the story and you don't need all the action that was presented. The story suffered from all the fluff that was added. A good example of this is every time they tell a story there's a cut scene to the action. By cutting away from the group you lose that moment sitting around a camp fire where they are building their bond. Instead it's more orc and goblin slaying.When you read the book you get a sense of the journey. You feel the cold and the hunger the group is suffering from and I didn't get that from the movie.For example when they are captured by the Goblin King they spend a lot of time in that mountain. I think Bilbo is stuck in there for 3 days and his escape from the mountain in the book was a lot harder than in the movie. Hell in the movie he just walks out.They also seemed to throw in a bunch of crap just to remind everyone the connection to LOTR.I guess it wasn't a bad movie, but I left disappointed and felt like the movie had two directors. One trying to tell a story about a journey and the other who was shooting an action flick.

I understand the bits about the "journey" but do you really want to just having Gandalf telling a story around a campfire 3 or 4 times during the movie? Yawn...As for the Bilbo "getting out" scene, that part is actually fairly faithful, although the part where he loses his buttons is him getting out, not trying to find a place to hide. In the book, he had to make his way through the goblins, but he had the ring on, so...he still pretty much walked out except getting stuck in the doorway and losing his buttons. The action scenes I didn't care for (and they were well done, I just think it could have been more dramatic) was dwarf's trying to escape from the Goblin King, the Trolls (I felt you didn't get the sense that Bilbo saved the day the way it happened and I thought the way the book handled the dwarfs being caught was also better) and the completely unnecessary wargs and goblins chasing them basically into Rivendell.That said, I did enjoy the scenes (and really enjoyed the movie) but could have hoped it was a little more dramatic and a little less slapstick.

 

[Thunderlips]

Hey look. I know Jar Jar Binks. Jar Jar Binks is an enemy of mine.The Trolls, Goblin King and Radagast are no Jar Jar Binks.

Radagast was just a little too over...The only thing about the Trolls and the Goblin King is that they kind of don't jibe with the presentation of orcs, trolls and goblins that Jackson more or less established in the first three movies. They are kind of silly (even though I thought they were well done), and (particularly with the trolls) it might have behooved Jackson to come with a more clever way of the Troll/Bilbo confrontation. I know in The Hobbit, Tolkien does describe (paraphrasing here) trolls as mainly mute and stupid...with those three being intellectual giants.....but it just doesn't quite work in this film series.

 

[Psychopav]

I didn't appreciate the continued drug references but what are you gonna do.

 

[Thunderlips]

I didn't appreciate the continued drug references but what are you gonna do.

Shrooms, Weed, Beer.....they know how to do it right in Middle Earth. Shame there only seems to be like a half dozen or so women on the whole planet....but hey..I guess that's what those dainty looking elves are for.

 

[dickey moe]

Saw it tonight. Kinda wished we had chosen 2-D -- my eyes were strained halfway through the movie, and a lot of the scenes looked blurry to me. Nodded off a bit during the Rivendell scenes. The Goblin King was the #### in all of his obese, jowlicious glory. Maybe I'm just getting old. My wife loved it though.

 

[Rick James]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

 

[Dexter]

I guess I'm in the minority here and didn't care for it as much. To me LOTR and the Hobbit are movies about a journey. The journey is the story and you don't need all the action that was presented. The story suffered from all the fluff that was added. A good example of this is every time they tell a story there's a cut scene to the action. By cutting away from the group you lose that moment sitting around a camp fire where they are building their bond. Instead it's more orc and goblin slaying.When you read the book you get a sense of the journey. You feel the cold and the hunger the group is suffering from and I didn't get that from the movie.For example when they are captured by the Goblin King they spend a lot of time in that mountain. I think Bilbo is stuck in there for 3 days and his escape from the mountain in the book was a lot harder than in the movie. Hell in the movie he just walks out.They also seemed to throw in a bunch of crap just to remind everyone the connection to LOTR.I guess it wasn't a bad movie, but I left disappointed and felt like the movie had two directors. One trying to tell a story about a journey and the other who was shooting an action flick.

I understand the bits about the "journey" but do you really want to just having Gandalf telling a story around a campfire 3 or 4 times during the movie? Yawn...As for the Bilbo "getting out" scene, that part is actually fairly faithful, although the part where he loses his buttons is him getting out, not trying to find a place to hide. In the book, he had to make his way through the goblins, but he had the ring on, so...he still pretty much walked out except getting stuck in the doorway and losing his buttons. The action scenes I didn't care for (and they were well done, I just think it could have been more dramatic) was dwarf's trying to escape from the Goblin King, the Trolls (I felt you didn't get the sense that Bilbo saved the day the way it happened and I thought the way the book handled the dwarfs being caught was also better) and the completely unnecessary wargs and goblins chasing them basically into Rivendell.That said, I did enjoy the scenes (and really enjoyed the movie) but could have hoped it was a little more dramatic and a little less slapstick.

In the book (and I know I'll get myself into trouble for this because the movie isn't the book) the goblins had the only way out blocked very well and he only just escaped losing his button in the process so I guess we disagree on being faithful to that part.You're right nobody wants to see Gandalf telling stories all movie long, but what I think the LOTR captured was the scope of the journey. They've traveled a long way and it's take a long time. In the hobbit it's like they are in the Shire turn the corner and make it to Rivendale. Once they leave Rivendale all of a sudden they are on the mountain pass and then BAM on the edge of merkwood.I 100% agree with you that the white Orc was totally unnecessary. You don't need him chasing them to move the plot along. The quest to the mountain will move the characters forward and advance the plot. Instead Peter Jackson decides okay they are done visiting X so the Orc or Wargs will come along and advanced the story so they travel to Y. Instead of that action I would have loved to see some of those beautiful sweeping shots that the LOTR movies are famous for. Show the viewer that yes they've traveled a long way and maybe supplies are getting short (like they do so well in the book). Nope more hacking and slashing. They kind of gave us a tease when they showed the misty mountain and merkwood.And when did goblins get so smart?

 

[Dexter]

Hey look. I know Jar Jar Binks. Jar Jar Binks is an enemy of mine.

The Trolls, Goblin King and Radagast are no Jar Jar Binks.

Radagast was just a little too over...

The only thing about the Trolls and the Goblin King is that they kind of don't jibe with the presentation of orcs, trolls and goblins that Jackson more or less established in the first three movies. They are kind of silly (even though I thought they were well done), and (particularly with the trolls) it might have behooved Jackson to come with a more clever way of the Troll/Bilbo confrontation. I know in The Hobbit, Tolkien does describe (paraphrasing here) trolls as mainly mute and stupid...with those three being intellectual giants.....but it just doesn't quite work in this film series.

Did anyone else get a 3 Stooges feeling from the trolls?

 

[glvsav37]

Hey look. I know Jar Jar Binks. Jar Jar Binks is an enemy of mine.

The Trolls, Goblin King and Radagast are no Jar Jar Binks.

Radagast was just a little too over...

The only thing about the Trolls and the Goblin King is that they kind of don't jibe with the presentation of orcs, trolls and goblins that Jackson more or less established in the first three movies. They are kind of silly (even though I thought they were well done), and (particularly with the trolls) it might have behooved Jackson to come with a more clever way of the Troll/Bilbo confrontation. I know in The Hobbit, Tolkien does describe (paraphrasing here) trolls as mainly mute and stupid...with those three being intellectual giants.....but it just doesn't quite work in this film series.

Did anyone else get a 3 Stooges feeling from the trolls?

Saw it tonight and thought the exact same thing. All the way town to the Whitney voice when one got slapped. Not a fan of them.

Overall I loved it form a movie perspective. I agree the white Orc was put in just to have a "bad guy" esp when they party was stuck in the trees, they did not come down and engage them in the book.

Saw it in IMAX 3D and in typical LOTR style the scenery and detail was amazing.

 

[glvsav37]

On our way out of the theater, the dude behind me says to someone he was with "well.....that ending sucked"

Guess he didn't get the memo that there are 2 other films to come.

 

[Todem]

Absolutely loved the film. IMAX -3D and it was epic.

Really looking forward to the next two films.

And the 9 minute Star Trek Into Darkness trailer? Can you say ***k yeah?

Love Throin and Bilbo and of course Gandalf. Great acting, really good pacing for the most part too.

 

[cstu]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

 

[glvsav37]

Absolutely loved the film. IMAX -3D and it was epic.And the 9 minute Star Trek Into Darkness trailer? Can you say ***k yeah?

Yea, I'm not a trek fan, but that clip in IMAX was insane. I may have to go see it just because

 

[Todem]

Absolutely loved the film. IMAX -3D and it was epic.And the 9 minute Star Trek Into Darkness trailer? Can you say ***k yeah?

Yea, I'm not a trek fan, but that clip in IMAX was insane. I may have to go see it just because

I am a mild Star Trek fan (I am a hardcore Star Wars fan in contrast). I enjoyed the original crew and their movies but could care less for Next Generation (which was a great tv series but did not adapt to the big screen like the original crew IMO) and all the others that followed (Deep Space 9 was good though).The Reboot of the original crew was fantastic. I highly recommend seeing that film (on Blueray if you can). My wife who never likes to watch anything to do with Star Trek (as I will pop on Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country from time to time) loved the reboot.yes they made it more accessible but they really made it.....cool. Not geeky, but cool, smart and filled with great acting, and action.The new film looks awesome.Anyway don't want to sidetrack the thread. I will wait for the Hobbit Extended Blue Rays to come out. I am sure Peter Jackson left stuff on the cutting room floor just like the LOTR trilogy. If your a big fan (like me) the extended versions of the LOTR trilogy is a huge treat and really adds more flavor to the story.

 

[beer 302]

Saw it tonight in 3D with my daughter. Loved it, great continuation of the series. Going to re-read the book shortly since I remembered very little of the story line.

Two big from me

 

[sports_fan]

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

My favorite take on Bombadil: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

 

[Rick James]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I've read the book. This movie did not need to be 3 hours.

 

[grateful zed]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I've read the book. This movie did not need to be 3 hours.

middle earth needs a lifetime to understand.

 

[Andrew74]

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

My favorite take on Bombadil: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

That was interesting. Thanks for posting.

 

[Mario Kart]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

Have you ever glanced at the appendices for LOTR? Because these movies encompass the bigger story included there, and not just the Hobbit.

 

[beer 302]

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

My favorite take on Bombadil: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

That was interesting. Thanks for posting.

Yea , that was pretty awesome. Thanks

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

 

[NewlyRetired]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

Because sons always look like fathers or grandfathers? And Kili/Fili are from Thorins sister.

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

Because sons always look like fathers or grandfathers? And Kili/Fili are from Thorins sister.

They look like the same species, generally.Thorin might as well look like an elf compared to the others.

 

[cstu]

Jackson's depiction of Radagast doesn't bother me. He seems to fit into the story better than Tolkien's Tom Bombadil in LoTR. Tolkien had written stories about Tom Bombadil and told them to his kids before he wrote LOTR.

I feel that Bombadil being put into LOTR was Tolkien pandering to his kids despite his statements that Bombadil has a purpose. I've read that Bombadil was a representation of pacifists during war time that will not take up arms against an enemy even if it means their own destruction or end of the world they care about.

My favorite take on Bombadil: Oldest and Fatherless: The Terrible Secret of Tom Bombadil

That was interesting. Thanks for posting.

Yea , that was pretty awesome. Thanks

Woah.

So, if this is true, then why does Bombadil save and help the ringbearer and his companions? Because they can bring about the downfall of Sauron, the current Dark Lord of Middle Earth. When Sauron falls, the other rings will fail and the wizards and elves will leave Middle Earth and the only great power that is left will be Bombadil.

Projecting that he might someday became the Dark Lord is a stretch, but I'm always suspicious of characters who are too goody-goody, especially when they live in a forest everyone is afraid of.Edit: after reading a bunch of comments I've concluded that Tom is simply the Switzerland of LOTR rather than evil.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

Because sons always look like fathers or grandfathers? And Kili/Fili are from Thorins sister.

They look like the same species, generally.Thorin might as well look like an elf compared to the others.

Humans don't even look alike.

 

[El Floppo]

I'm sure it's been talked about, but what gives with the dwarves? Why are some so human (Thorin, Kili and Fili) looking and others so dwarfy looking? I found it distracting. (saw it in IMAX 3d hfr) If it's age, there are other dwarves that are young but still bulbous. Thorin basically looked like Aragorn while the rest looked like Gimli.

Only one should look like Gimli, his Father Gloin. I assume Jackson gave them all distinctive looks to help people seperate them. The thought being that every human does not look alike, so why would every dwarf look the same. Here is a great flow chart to help you tell who is whohttp://www.wired.com/underwire/2012/12/hobbit-dwarves-flowchart/

I didn't make my point well. I can tell them apart. The problem for me is that most of them look like CG Gimli-like dwarves with big noses and overall bulbous qualities. Thorin looks like a human- very similar to Aragorn or some other "hero", while the other guys look like donkeys.And if Gimli is supposed to look like Gloin- why doesn't Thorin look like his dwarfy-looking dad and granddad?

ftr: Thorins two closest relations are Fili and Kili which are his direct nephews. Those three look similar.

So they look alike, but Thrain and Thror look like muppets. I think I'm saying less that I don't get it, and more that I don't like it.

Because sons always look like fathers or grandfathers? And Kili/Fili are from Thorins sister.

They look like the same species, generally.Thorin might as well look like an elf compared to the others.

Humans don't even look alike.

The elves in LotR/Hobbit look like elves, even though there's variation. The hobbits are the same. Humans too. But the dwarves have a couple of guys that look like humans- which doesn't bother you as much as it does me.

 

[cstu]

Really disappointed. Here's a tip: when your movie is three hours long and people still want more, then your story-telling blows.

Like I said, wait until all 3 movies are out.

I will wait. Had a chance to see it last night and passed. Making three movies out of this one book was a terrible idea. I'm not going to pay $30+ to see one movie when it could have been completed in two.Besides, when the movie is out on DVD... I'll download it and/or rent it instead.

Have you ever glanced at the appendices for LOTR? Because these movies encompass the bigger story included there, and not just the Hobbit.

I don't mind the money as much as waiting nearly two years in between movies that were filmed at the same time. I'll gladly pay $30 to see the marathon but I learned my lesson after being disappointed after FOTR and TT.