as someone whos never read the books or follows lotr/hobbit like other fans, i enjoyed the movie. sometimes its hard to get into a movie that follows a series of books without getting lost and the producers of these movies did quite well. im glad the guy who plays bilbo baggins got the part for the movie, he was awesome in the bbc series sherlock.
You should see him (Martin Freeman) in The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy, he's brilliant in that one! At first I was kinda hesitant about having him as Bilbo, simply because I didn't know of any of the actors in LotR when I first saw FotR (apart from Gandalf/Elrond), and I wanted them to keep using rather unknown actors for the characters that don't need an old actor, since a lot old actors are well known ^^ But damn he did a splendid job potraying Bilbo.
Cave Cave Deus Videt
Finally went and saw it last night. Loved it. Thorin is such a badass. And I think Gandalf did more awesome stuff in that than he did in all 3 LOTR movies combined, except for maybe when he fought the Balrog.
This is honestly is why it might have been better as two movies, they could have cut out the unneeded filler fluff, and packed each of the two movies to be a nice long 3 hour movie and then left a lot of the fluff for the extended edition.
I don't mind 3 movies, but it seems like no matter how they do it one movie will have too much material to cover and the other not enough. I will just have to wait and see, I enjoyed the AUJ enough to the point where I will trust Jackson's decision with the next two.
Went to see it today, was awesome. Cgi was really bad in some points imo especially the part with the wizard on the sledge getting chased by worgs lotr had better cgi imo. Aside from that it was awesome and i still loved every moment!
Eeeehhh ... Some things are opinion, and other things are fact. Fact is that this had better CGI then LOTR. It would be like comparing 'Return of the Jedi' with Revenge of the Sith' .... Opinion - Return of the Jedi is the far better movie ... Fact - Revenge of the Sith CGI is leaps and bounds better. (And if you say that's unfair then even Phantom Menace VS ROTJ, Phantom Menace would still win CGI-wise)
I'll give you that moment though, when he's getting chased on the Sled and he like goes past 2 Outcrops and then the Sled does like a 'Flick' at the Camera and you see his cape kind of 'Pop out' in 3D. That was probably the one (And only) moment where I did cringe at the CGI. But Trolls in ROTK VS the 3 in The Hobbit? Smaug VS Felbeasts? Wargs VS Wargs? .. I could go on, but the CGI is most certainly better in The Hobbit.
Last edited by Daverid; 2013-01-05 at 10:11 AM.
I saw the Hobbit last week, and I enjoyed it immensely. I loved seeing Radaghast on screen after reading about him in the books, and I can't wait to see Beorn (one of my favourite characters) in part 2. I think they could have done it as two separate 3 hour movies like with the 3 LotR movies, but it just means there is more to look forward to in each December for the next couple years.
Formerly The Dwarf Lover (TDL)
December 2013 ... But then we only have to wait 6/7 months till June/July 2014... Man if I had to wait another year for the Battle of the Five Armies I'd pull my hair out. Movie 1 ended on a nice point to wait and continue when we get around to it, but Movie 2 is going to end of a massive Cliffhanger.
And yea I'll agree with just about everyone who says it could have been done in 2 movies. They easily could have cut out the whole business with Azog, Radaghast and just left Movie 1 off perhaps at when they escape the Elves. But honestly, it's going to be so much better in 3 parts. It's going to allow for such a better connection with LOTR (even in the first movie we can already see the insane amount of foreshadowing) and allow for such a more perfect, rich and detailed adaptation.
Well, they did a good job so far.
Having seen An Unexpected Journey and rewatching the Fellowship of the Ring, I finally get the reference "Darkness crept back into the forests of the world. Rumor grew of a shadow in the east. Whispers of a nameless fear."
Maybe it was obvious to some, but I never made the connection because I only read the first half of The Hobbit. Now I realize it's about the Necromancer.
Dont know if anyone else noticed this but for a movie with a budget like this i just couldnt stop thinking about it.
When thorin got pissed at fili and kili teasing bilbo about orcs and walked away and balin went to explain why thorin has the most reasons to hate orcs and the flashback of the battle infront of moria came Thrór was hitting some orcs with air just waving his shield around but not hitting any orc eventho they still hit the ground :P i found it to be very sloppy made by peter
- Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog
Well the reason i particulary focused on that dwarf is coz he is wearing a crown so knowning it was Thror i couldnt realy focus on anything else besides him.
Last edited by Vestig3; 2013-01-06 at 08:27 PM.
- Vanilla was legitimately bad; we just didn't know any better at the time - SirCowDog
The problem I had with the CGI was that it was too clean for creatures like Trolls and Wargs, they're supposed to be dark, gritty and dirty, they looked pretty clean in this movie.
Anyways, that has got to be the only complain I have with this movie, that and the Gollum-Bilbo riddle game went on a tad too long, everything else in this movie kicked maximum ass.
just saw the hobbit for the second time.
heres some things that bother me
- too much cgi
- talking trolls and goblin king ruins the mystery aspect of middle earth. (can u imagine balrog talking to gandalf? that would've ruined the entire scene)
- azog should have just stayed in the flash back and true to the book. didnt some other dwarf actually behead him?
i think rotten tomatoes was pretty accurate in their review. i think a 65% makes sense.
i li
Milk was a bad choice.
2013 MMO-Champion User of the Year (2nd runner up)
Talking trolls and Great Goblin are part of the book, though.
______________________________
One of the change I didn't like was Mirkwood. It was supposed to be already corrupted and called Mirkwood when the wizards arrived in Middle Earth about 2000 years before the story. It is even implied in the Silmarillion that the darkening of Greenwood-the-Great was what prompted the Valar to send the Istari in the first place.
Same with the Ringwraiths. In the movie, it is said that the Witch King died in Angmar and was buried deep in a tomb locked by a spell. The White Council is surprised to learn he lives again and recognizes the blade Gandalf brought as a Blade of Morgul. It is implied the Necromancer brought him back from death. It goes against what we know of the Rings and their effects. The bearers of the Nine never died, but were turned into the Ringwraiths. The Witch King was already a Nazgûl when he was ruling over Angmar. He was then beaten by an army of Men and Elves and fled to Mordor, where he laid siege to Minas Ithil, which became known as Minas Morgul. If, in the movie, the Witch King was buried all this time, when did he take Minas Ithil where he could forge blades of Morgul?
The Hobbit remains a great movie that I enjoyed. I just did not like these change.
"Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"