View Poll Results: Dwarf

Voters
241. You may not vote on this poll
  • Thorin Oakenshield

    82 34.02%
  • Balin

    39 16.18%
  • Bifur

    4 1.66%
  • Bofur

    11 4.56%
  • Bombur

    22 9.13%
  • Dori

    2 0.83%
  • Dwalin

    27 11.20%
  • Fili

    12 4.98%
  • Kili

    30 12.45%
  • Gloin

    8 3.32%
  • Nori

    1 0.41%
  • Oin

    1 0.41%
  • Ori

    2 0.83%
  1. #1441
    Scarab Lord Vestig3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    The Netherlands, Amsterdam
    Posts
    4,103
    Quote Originally Posted by McNeil View Post
    Can't wait to see the next LoTR, The Destruction of Smaug. I really enjoyed The Hobbit, and I haven't seen any LOTR before except the first one at release.
    Think your talking about the new Hobbit, desolation of smaug xD also you havent seen any of the LOTR before except the first one xd?
    - Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog


  2. #1442
    Overall it wasn't bad but it kinda felt like a "cheaper" and less epic version of LOTR. Which is pretty much what the book was as well but still. They should have done the Hobbit movie first.

    Also I didn't really appreciate the childish moments. I guess they wanted to put in some funny moments for the kids but it felt really out of place. Especially the scene with the goblin king. I was like ".... really?" Radagast also felt more like a silly Hogwarts teacher.

  3. #1443
    Bloodsail Admiral Stevegasm's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    BC, Canada
    Posts
    1,139
    Quote Originally Posted by Doylez View Post
    Overall it wasn't bad but it kinda felt like a "cheaper" and less epic version of LOTR. Which is pretty much what the book was as well but still. They should have done the Hobbit movie first.

    Also I didn't really appreciate the childish moments. I guess they wanted to put in some funny moments for the kids but it felt really out of place. Especially the scene with the goblin king. I was like ".... really?" Radagast also felt more like a silly Hogwarts teacher.
    The Hobbit is a kids book, so it's to be expected that there will be childish moments. LOTR is about 1200 pages, while the Hobbit was something like 300 or so (been 21 years since I read it so memories are a little foggy with such detail), so yeah, you're going to have a difference in epicness. The movie seemed to hit everything I remember from the book pretty dead on and it seems like quite a good adaptation. I think a lot of people forget the fact that the Hobbit is a children's novel.

  4. #1444



    Found this quite amusing and relevant!

    Bread is the paper of the food industry.
    You write your sandwich on it.



  5. #1445
    Quote Originally Posted by Doylez View Post
    Overall it wasn't bad but it kinda felt like a "cheaper" and less epic version of LOTR. Which is pretty much what the book was as well but still. They should have done the Hobbit movie first.
    My thoughts on that are more that... well a really good version of LOTR had never been done. The cartoons for it was okish... but not all that good really. It was amazing to actually have it done in a satisfying way. The Hobbit being done was probably less urgent because the cartoon for that actually had been brilliant. At least that's my own reasoning about why it was done in this order.

  6. #1446
    Quote Originally Posted by Arlee View Post
    My thoughts on that are more that... well a really good version of LOTR had never been done. The cartoons for it was okish... but not all that good really. It was amazing to actually have it done in a satisfying way. The Hobbit being done was probably less urgent because the cartoon for that actually had been brilliant. At least that's my own reasoning about why it was done in this order.
    The Lord of the Rings simply has more action and a more mature storyline. That's why it was made first.
    Remember that prior to the LotR movies, fantasy movies in general were shunned. Only if done right, something as big as LotR could change this.

    If the Hobbit was released first instead, it probably wouldn't have had the impact to change how society looks at fantasy movies. And it wouldn't have been 3 movies, it would've been 1 too full with stuff to make sense. The LotR movies were the only logical option.

    But looking back, for the fans it would've been more fun to see the Hobbit first and Lord of the Rings second.
    Chronologically it makes more sense, and in terms of action and darker storyline as well.

    But do take in mind that because LotR was made first, we do get more enhanced Hobbit movies with all kinds of backstory that wouldn't have been in it had the Hobbit been made first. So in a sense, what we have now is better.

  7. #1447
    Fantasy movies were shunned what? I mean some of them certainly (and they pretty much deserved it)... but there have been a number of very successful fantasy movies. Maybe if you define fantasy movies as being only ones where there are elves and dwarves... the genre of Fantasy is MUCH MUCH larger than that though.

  8. #1448
    Beren & Lúthien someone?

    THAT would be the story

  9. #1449
    The Unstoppable Force Peggle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Southwark, London
    Posts
    20,863
    before i start comparing the hobbit to Lotr i need to see the whole trilogy i think. i really enjoyed the movie.
    Need new signature ideas

  10. #1450
    The Lightbringer Northy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,139
    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=100983

    The 3rd installment entitled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" has officially been moved back to December 2014. Not a big deal for me, I don't mind the wait, and I always love going to movies over the Christmas holiday anyways. Loved the first one and looking forward to the next two, and looking forward to seeing the final three-film trilogy in its full uninterrupted entirety.

  11. #1451
    Quote Originally Posted by Northy View Post
    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=100983

    The 3rd installment entitled "The Hobbit: There and Back Again" has officially been moved back to December 2014. Not a big deal for me, I don't mind the wait, and I always love going to movies over the Christmas holiday anyways. Loved the first one and looking forward to the next two, and looking forward to seeing the final three-film trilogy in its full uninterrupted entirety.
    That's good news in my opinion, Summer Movies sometimes have great quality but are usually only there for the money. Holiday Season movies are often either the cheap Christmas grabs or of great quality.

  12. #1452
    The Lightbringer Northy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    3,139
    The Hobbit: AUJ coming out on Blu-Ray on March 19th. Gonna rent the heck out of it. Regretting not having seen it more times in the theatre. Saving my money for the extended edition trilogy box set though.

  13. #1453
    Scarab Lord xylophone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    4,625
    Anybody know if there is gonna be a hfr version available on blu ray?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Lets say you have a two 3 inch lines. One is all red and the other is 48% red and 52% blue. Does that mean there's a 50-50 chance they're both red or is the second line matching the all red line by 48%?
    ^^^ Wells using an analogy

  14. #1454
    Pretty sure Blu-ray doesn't support HFR (48FPS)

  15. #1455
    Scarab Lord Phookah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Zebes, SR-21
    Posts
    4,589
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."

  16. #1456
    Herald of the Titans BHD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    WMTown
    Posts
    2,737
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    Yeah, Peter Jackson obviously needs more money, that must be why he does it. >_>

    If you didn't already know, they're adding story from the appendices, explaining all the things happening at the same time as the story of the Bilbo book.
    Cave Cave Deus Videt

  17. #1457
    I expected a bit more from it

  18. #1458
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    Peter Jackson had originally intended it to be one very long film, or two shorter films. Certain companies who aim to profit from such creations decided it would be best as trilogy. Thus, it is.

    As to ruining the book, I disagree. The book's still the same as it always was and the film makes a decent stab at it. With literal classics, you can almost never have a perfect film to match the original source material. For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker. Also, that's not just a defence of Peter Jackson in particular, but for any director trying to translate a script of a screenplay of a book, into a visual medium.

  19. #1459
    Quote Originally Posted by Shinzai View Post
    For as many people that liked the LotR trilogy, just as many derided them for not following the books perfectly. You can't win either way as a film maker.
    Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

    But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

    Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.

  20. #1460
    The Unstoppable Force Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    22,340
    Quote Originally Posted by Phookah View Post
    This movie was awful. Why in the hell did they have to go and ruin The Hobbit? Not to mention them splitting the book up into 3 movies (really?) It's my favorite book in the world, I read it on average on 3-4 times a year but there isn't even CLOSE to 3 movies worth of action/story.
    The whole thing just screams "I'm Peter Jackson. Now give me your money, nerds."
    The book isn't ruined. Go pick it up, it still has the same words that Tolkien set down on paper seventy years ago.

    ---------- Post added 2013-03-05 at 07:25 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Hardstyler01 View Post
    Well, to be honest I did miss a lot of things when I first saw the LotR films.

    But once I saw the extended versions of the LotR I was very pleased. He really did fit in almost everything I missed. So I don't think you can really blame Peter Jackson, he does what he can for the fans. And I understand why he cut the battle in the Shire for example, it would make the Return of the King anti-climatic and drag on too long. But I did miss Saruman's death though... but he included that in the extended versions, perfect for me.

    Overall I'm very happy with Peter Jackson's work. Having watched the Making Of discs, I realize that Peter Jackson really has a passion for getting it right because he loves Tolkien's work. And I think most of his cast and crew are like this as well, so I'm sure that even when they change things they do it to make it better. Or at least, that's their intention.
    I'm really fucking glad he cut the scouring of the shire, that would have been another 5 hours.
    They ask me why I'm bringin' - A baby into battle - That's really irresponsible - And getting them rattled
    I say "give me a break - Get off of my back damn, it" - I didn't learn parenting - My daddy was a planet

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •