[Movies] The Hobbit Trilogy (Possible Spoilers)

[Arrowstormen]

Well yeah, but how big is it compared to for instance Helm's deep? Bigger? Smaller? If that's mentioned anywhere

Don't know, bigger than the castle part of Helm's Deep probably, it does house an entire army and Gandalf wanders around a lot in there.

[Deleted]

Watched the movie on Friday, the Bilbo and Smaug scene was so epic.

[Faesroll]

Just watched it about 30 minutes ago, amazing movie although that cliffhanger was kinda lame.

[Xargoth6634]

SPOILER: Peter Jackson is still a shit director.

[Deleted]

Just went to see the movie and it was beyond amazing. I had a blast every single second the movie lasted and I'm excited for the third and last movie but the ending was something new. Even something new for Peter Jackson. However it was very well made, the sound (7.1) was superb and the effects was pretty cool. Smaug is one of my new favorite characters; "I am.. death!"

What blew my mind into million pieces was when Gandalf met Sauron. Something was just got me.

- - - Updated - - -

How big is Dol Guldur compared to for instance Helm's deep? Because we see legions of orcs in dol guldur and it doesnt seem that big (but it might be), so really how big is it?

Dol Guldur is deeper however Helms Deep is more wider and open. I believe they are almost the same size if we take brick from brick. Helms Deep looks larger but the walls also cover up alot of fields.

- - - Updated - - -

SPOILER: Peter Jackson is still a shit director.

Now go tell that to the people who is behind oscar awards.

[Ron Burgundy]

was it just me or did legolas look a little too "thick"? especially in the face. i would have had him lose 15 pounds

[Markluzz]

Well, aside from the Tauriel/Kili thing which was just awkward and unnecessary, I don't really agree with anything here.

Also the worship of the source material is getting tiring, The Hobbit is a CHILDREN's BOOK with very minimal actual quality writing, and also I'd hate to rub it in anyone's face but Tolkien was great at creating a mythology on a macro level but he is not exactly a great writer on a micro-level, and that is true for LotR as well (in fact, I'd say probably the Silmarillion is his best work because it is like a "Bible" of Middle-Earth as opposed to a coherent story), so I don't really see how the film could butcher his book where there was very little to butcher anyways. There is not exactly much character development in the book, aside from Bilbo and Thorin which both happens here (Bilbo gets more ballsy and starts to fall under the ring's influence, while Thorin gets overrun with greed and a lust for power).
I especially liked two additions that weren't in the book, namely Gandalf's duel with The Necromancer/Sauron, which was spectacular and Sauron's abstractness was really well done and how the dwarves tried to kill Smaug in Erebor. That was a needed scene that was very crafty and well-made and way better than Smaug getting pissed into leaving the mountain because Bilbo stole something of minimal value.

I was alright with the Dol Goldur stuff in attempt to tie the Hobbit in with the LOTR, but none of the stuff Peter Jackson made up was better written than anything Tolkien wrote for the book. I understand Tolkien was a flawed writer, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a million times better of a writer than Peter Jackson and had much more charm in the actual storyline of the book than the overbloated CGI action of the Desolation of Smaug.

[Deleted]

I was alright with the Dol Goldur stuff in attempt to tie the Hobbit in with the LOTR, but none of the stuff Peter Jackson made up was better written than anything Tolkien wrote for the book. I understand Tolkien was a flawed writer, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a million times better of a writer than Peter Jackson and had much more charm in the actual storyline of the book than the overbloated CGI action of the Desolation of Smaug.

If the movie would have stayed absolutely true to the book it would have been a boring movie. And not because of the "no explosion for 8 seconds" effect. In your review you spoke as if the original book had some massive cerebral content that was slaughtered for an overvisual action piece. The thing is, I am a person who likes slowburning cerebral stuff on TV. My favourite TV series is Babylon 5 which is extremely cerebral and also kinda slow.

BUT there is zero such things in the source materials or ALL of Tolkien's work even. Tolkien's charm comes from his ability to build a universe with a history and cultures and his linguistics, since he was a linguist. The actual storyline in all of his works is extremely cliché'd, over-romanticized (referring to the art period/form, NOT saccharine lovey-dovey crap which is totally absent from his works), lacking character development and any sort of moral grayness or ambiguity. Smeagol might be one exception.

I'd say here the choice was making a boring movie with no cerebral content that is true to the book or making an action-packed and visually stimulating movie with no cerebral content. I prefer the latter.

[Arrowstormen]

I was alright with the Dol Goldur stuff in attempt to tie the Hobbit in with the LOTR, but none of the stuff Peter Jackson made up was better written than anything Tolkien wrote for the book. I understand Tolkien was a flawed writer, but it doesn't change the fact that he is a million times better of a writer than Peter Jackson and had much more charm in the actual storyline of the book than the overbloated CGI action of the Desolation of Smaug.

If the movie would have stayed absolutely true to the book it would have been a boring movie. And not because of the "no explosion for 8 seconds" effect. In your review you spoke as if the original book had some massive cerebral content that was slaughtered for an overvisual action piece. The thing is, I am a person who likes slowburning cerebral stuff on TV. My favourite TV series is Babylon 5 which is extremely cerebral and also kinda slow.

BUT there is zero such things in the source materials or ALL of Tolkien's work even. Tolkien's charm comes from his ability to build a universe with a history and cultures and his linguistics, since he was a linguist. The actual storyline in all of his works is extremely cliché'd, over-romanticized (referring to the art period/form, NOT saccharine lovey-dovey crap which is totally absent from his works), lacking character development and any sort of moral grayness or ambiguity. Smeagol might be one exception.

I'd say here the choice was making a boring movie with no cerebral content that is true to the book or making an action-packed and visually stimulating movie with no cerebral content. I prefer the latter.

It's funny how different the two Hobbit movies are. How about we mix them together in one big bowl as one big movie, and then everybody is happy? We're only missing the big war stuff from the latter two LOTR movies and we've got the whole package in The Hobbit.

- - - Updated - - -

He obviously knows how to please the masses. As to what an awesome director make, is anyone's opinion. Maybe we could judge your opinion better if you told us who a great director is in your book? That literally could be anone from Lars von Trier to Michael Bay?

"EXPLOSIONS!"

"I wanna make a movie about a girl who's a nymphomaniac and it has to be filled with sex. No, not porn, so much sex it becomes as monotone as watching people eat. Also, it has to be 5 hours and 40 minutes long. What do you mean I can't do that? Fine, four hours, but I want a director's cut."

[cudomix]

Say whatever you want, Heavenly Creatures is a great movie. On both Hobbits, i could live without 10-15 minutes of too long action scenes (stone giants in first, what was the point of scene at all?).
Von Trier made one brilliant movie (Breaking the Waves), and lot of pretentious (some are decent) crap later.

[Deleted]

Going to see it tomorow hopefully, but mmoc, answer me this, is it weird to go to the cinema by yourself? My friend says it is, but the. He wont come to the cinema to see it with me, and then calls me weird for going alone I never feel weird going alone before, how about you guys?

[Markluzz]

Going to see it tomorow hopefully, but mmoc, answer me this, is it weird to go to the cinema by yourself? My friend says it is, but the. He wont come to the cinema to see it with me, and then calls me weird for going alone I never feel weird going alone before, how about you guys?

Nothing wrong with it, I personally don't like to though, especially since I can usually find at least one person happy to go with me (even if I pay for their ticket).

But that's just my personal preference, I don't see anything weird about going alone.

[Deleted]

Nothing wrong with it, I personally don't like to though, especially since I can usually find at least one person happy to go with me (even if I pay for their ticket).

Yeah, ah, I recently moved away from most my friends though, don't really know anyone round here apart from a one person. I prefer going with people, but I've gone alone before and it seemed fine.

[Deleted]

Yeah, I already didn't like the elves in the LOTR trilogy, but The Hobbit make them appear even worse! There really are no redeeming qualities to them imo. Acting all high and mighty but refusing to aid anyone. Bunch of arrogant pricks. And then when Middle Earth needs them most they are leaving? Yeah, truly classy.

Anyway, haven't seen The Hobbit part 2 yet but from the looks of this thread it's better than the first part, which excites me.
Going to see it sometime next week.

Have you read the Silmarillion? The elves defended middle earth for ages, more than any other race did, and all they got was grief, their great mighty empires n kingdoms brought low to ruin. The elves deserved an exit from that hell hole we call middle earth. Besides Morgoth was defeated n Sauron is nothing compared in might nor are his followers, Sauron does he have Balrogs n dragons following him? After Morgoth's fall, it was just small-scale crap the elves couldn't bother to put up with anymore and the gods allowed the elves to depart, which they kinda owed them for doing such a poor job in looking out for them..

Silmarillion, now that would probably take 10 movies to make...

[theturn]

To those who haven't seen it yet. If you liked the first and never read the books you will probably love this movie. If you liked the first and read the books you will probably be about as happy with this one. If you have read the books its best to go in knowing that this is no longer an adaption but a "loosely based off" story, you will enjoy it more if you try to forget the books.

- - - Updated - - -

If the movie would have stayed absolutely true to the book it would have been a boring movie.

This has to be the dumbest thing I have read today. First off everyone I have talked to has said the best part of the movie was smaug and bilbo and it also happens to be really really close to the book. Second LOTR trilogy was actually quite accurate with very few major changes and most of those worked out. Look at the ratings on those movies much much higher than any of these three will get. All three were oscar contendors this one will be lucky to even be nominated for anything other than CFX and costume. Third there is already a good adaption of the book (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hobbit/) and its not boring in the least I suggest you go look for it on youtube. No one is asking for a word for word adaption we want it to be true to the spirit of the source material like the original three were.

- - - Updated - - -

Silmarillion, now that would probably take 10 movies to make...

My sister read it and says she still has trouble understanding it. Though the history of Sauron is really interesting, crafty fellow.

[Ron Burgundy]

nobody here thought the tauriel kili healing scene was a lil inappropriate?

[Voldur]

I just saw the film. I think it was great, and this is coming from a guy who thought the first one was a 7 at best.

The cgi was much better this time, smaug was fantastic, but there are times when it is so so, specially the beorn scene, it all seemed fake.

There are some scenes that drag on a little like, without giving spoilers, the last one with smaug (not the part with bilbo)
The relationship between Tauriel and Kili, was soo forced, but overall is a great movie with better action, better pacing and less silly.

P.D I loved Thranduil, it seemed as arrogant and douchey as the Belfs in wow. He was awesome

[theturn]

nobody here thought the tauriel kili healing scene was a lil inappropriate?

My only thought was "this scene is only in the movie because of FOTR"

[Ron Burgundy]

peter jackson ripped off beowulf with the whole gold drenched dragon in the end.


also why did thranduils face become scarred while talking to thorin? did he fight a dragon or something?

[Arrowstormen]

peter jackson ripped off beowulf with the whole gold drenched dragon in the end.


also why did thranduils face become scarred while talking to thorin? did he fight a dragon or something?

Tolkien "ripped" off Beowolf, if it's a reference to Beowolf it's an excellent idea.

And yes, Thranduil has apparently faced a dragon before back when there were more than one.