>>36165
Well Tolkien didn't have much to do with it, the dwarven language he made up was based on Semitic languages like Arabic and Hebrew.

>>36166
Something which Singer probably knew and specifically avoided because of fears that giving little men who spend all their time thinking about gold yiddish accents would have unfortunate implications.

Most of the low-scoring reviews amount to the following:
1. It's not as epic as LotR.
2. It's too long.
3. 48 FPS is nausea-inducing.

The third point is a fair criticism because Jackson is really pushing it, as well as what >>36079 said.

Loved it over all, saw it with a great crowd of people.

Never expected to laugh that hard in a Non-Comedy move, the Wilhelm Scream nearly killed me.

Also "I think the worse is behind us."

Oh, Oh Bilbo. Let me hug you, you poor poor thing.

>movie feels like an adventure, things are exciting!

>runs out of steam halfway through
>movie turns into one long chase scene
>repetitive as fuck, no longer feels adventurous
>two more movies of this shit

1. Dwarf prince tells Bilbo to fuck off
2. Oh Bilbo is conflicted! To adventure or not to adventure?
3. Bilbo decides to adventure
4. Repeat steps 1-3 about fifty times or until audience is thoroughly bored
5. Dwarf prince hugs Bilbo (this is dramatic, right?)

saw it, liked it. awesome music. 3D was only occasionally gimmicky.

some of the supplemental stuff was unfamiliar to me, now I feel compelled to seek out further details.

also, did anyone else get... like... a Super Mario Dwarves vibe from the later action sequences? jump here, grab your buddy and toss him here, counterweight his landing here, etc.

Fuck man that movie was great. I didn't even mind the stuff that they added in or changed from the original story.

>>36172
>also, did anyone else get... like... a Super Mario Dwarves vibe from the later action sequences? jump here, grab your buddy and toss him here, counterweight his landing here, etc.

Well, that's kind of what dwarves do.

>my face during every scene involving dwarves fighting

That was a thoroughly enjoyable movie. It had a couple of problems, sure, but it was still a ton of fun.

Awesome movie. I loved the sense of immersion I got -- felt like I had entered Middle-earth once again.

They did a great job of fleshing out the dwarves; Bofur (guy with the pointy ear-hat?) was great with his conversation with Bilbo, and the interactions between Thorin and Balin in particular were golden. It did a good job of really showing the state of the dwarven people as a diaspora.

I liked how this film shows a more light-hearted Middle-earth before the return of Sauron; seeing the genuine warm friendship between Gandalf and Elrond was great.

The scenes with Bilbo and Gollum were absolutely perfect, and probably the best part of it all. Great acting and a real feeling of tension.

And hnnggg dat music; I'm glad that the main theme was distinctive but also had enough range to define a new sound for the film. The songs they included were perfect, too.

Now, I did see it in 48FPS and I think my feelings are mixed about it. There were some really impressive clear, smooth shots, and after a bit I typically got used to it. And I think that some of the few cases of 3D things flying at the audience were enhanced by the HFR; a couple times I found myself flinching at oncoming arrows and stuff. But then there were some shots, especially at the beginning but still continuing sporadically throughout, where everything felt sped up or just 'off'. The HFR is gorgeous but my immersion kept getting shaken throughout. I'm planning on seeing it again tomorrow and might see it in IMAX 3D without the HFR, and then I might get a good comparison.

oh and

that part where Gollum kills the goblin and Sting suddenly stops glowing

D:

I was kind of disappointed with the orcs and goblins. Was it just me or were the orcs way more cgi-dependent in this film than in lotr?

>>36187
They had to talk a lot more in this film and rubber makeup is limiting in how expressive you can be. Yeah, you can tell it's CG, but I wouldn't say it was bad by any means.

The CGI made me cringe. Azog should really have been done with makeup, in my humble opinion. The Goblin King under the mountain reminded me of Spiderwick goblins. The wargs and the eagles (I expected a bit of an implication of a conversation with those at least) could be better, specially considering the images of the wargs on the promotional poster. There was a certain unpleasant yellowish tinge to the movie (because of the new cameras?). The scene with the trolls was hollywoodified a bit. The stone giants scene was probably more confusing to who didn't read the book, it looked like they were fighting out of the blue, instead of playing a game. Also, I never imagined they'd look like that, but that problem might be with me.

I don't remember if Bombur (the fatty) was supposed to have more scenes, or if they're still more ahead on the movies. For some reason I seem to remember him having more screen time on the book, and I liked the character.

And don't get me started on the Necromancer. Also, apparently they changed the story about that?... if I recall, Thorin had been prisoner on the Necromancer's dungeon, where he got the map?

That said: I still really liked it. Overall, after the first scene, the dwarves were pretty likable, I lol'd at the trolls scene. Definitely have the intention to rewatch on the cinemas at least one time, probably more because tradition. And man, DAT soundtrack. I was excited for the next movies just to see how the themes each of the next movies are gonna sound. Also, took me a bit to notice the Song of the Lonely Mountain sounded a lot like that song Pippin sings on RotK. And fingers crossed for a full version of "The Road Goes Ever On".

>>36190
Virtually all of his stuff does come later than the events portrayed in the movie. Most of it involves napping. And yeah, they changed some of the Necromancer stuff. Pretty much everything to do with the necromancer was done "off-screen" I guess you'd say and then talked about later. The white council meeting that was seen in the film was also something originally done off-screen.

But they've sort of said they'd be doing stuff like this. Taking off-screen events and showing them, while also adding in material from Tolkien's notes and unfinished works. Personally I don't mind. It all seemed to fit fine. The only thing that kind of bothered me was the portrayal of Radagast the Brown. He seemed a little too incompetent, and of course his depiction of with the bird shit on his head didn't help.

>>36190
Bombur's characterization in the book basically consisted of about three times where its mentioned that he's fat.

Plus the part where he falls into magical sleep while they're traveling the Mirkwood. And then he wakes up and completely forgot about a big chunk of their adventure while he was asleep.

That's about all I recall about his character from the book.

>>36197
>>36198
Ah I see.

Yeah I knew they were gonna use stuff from Unfinished Tales particularly the White Council, and in the books Gandalf supposedly manages to convince them to siege the Necromancer's stronghold, where he had a lot of power already, maybe an army I think?

Leonard Nimoy - The Ballad of …

http://the-hobbit-movie.com/2012/12/18/hobbit-crew-talk-about-smaug/

You know, i always thought the giants in the Hobbit were just a literary figure descriibing a thiuderstorm, not really actual creatures.

>joke about the movie having a gratuitous car chase before seeing it
>go to theater
>Radagast and the orcs

>>36220
Rhosgobel Rabbits!

Saw the film in 2-D, normal, no enhancements or anything. Came out with a massive headache, but I don't think it was the film's fault, because the same thing happened at the end of Django and the last several other films I saw in theatres. I might have something else going on that I need to get checked out.

Whoever deemed Andy Serkis unable to win an Oscar because of CGI enhancement needs to have their head examined. (Although this is an unpopular opinion, but my favorite role of his is Captain Haddock, not Gollum/Smeagol.) It's weird, my first experiences with LoTR (reading The Hobbit and seeing Fellowship)...I actually hated them. With a passion. But I'm really warming to them now, maybe I was just a bit tense when it came to getting into high fantasy. But I love it now. Everything about the film was great. Martin Freeman is a bit typecast as "British literary everyman/straight man thrown into extraordinary position", but he's so damn good at it.

>>that part at the end with Thoren walking off the tree branch and the trees swinging back and forth, some of the battle sequence with the orcs looks really fucking familiar
>>rewatch The Adventure of Tintin
>>dat scene with Red Rackham
>>yeah, Peter Jackson just referenced himself...and I'm okay with this

Well that was alot off fun.
Felt a bit short to me but then again I had it figured that would put the cliffhanger in barrels do to the Legos but whatever.
Time flys huh.

Saw it yesterday, and it's really good!
Not mind blowing but really entertaining and it didn't felt tiresome for it's duration. It leaves you wanting more!
And most of my friends who are well versed on Tolkien's works, have already went to see it two or three more times. They pretty hyped about that movie.

>>36197
I haven't read The Hobbit but I didn't felt that Radagast looked incompetent, just odd. And that what made him awesome for me. Also, DAT RABBIT CHASE.

Let's get the good obvious parts out of the way - I loved it, it was fun, funny, and beautiful. Bilbo is so much better than Frodo it hurts.

That said, Jackson couldn't pace a movie to save his life; are there no editors in Hollywood brave enough to scold him on the nose when he goes overboard with his shit?

Stories need high points (chase scenes! battles!) and low points (camp setting! any chance for character interactions!) to break things off; Like a good roller coaster - you can't loop all the fucking time.

The Hobbit had a slow start, which I enjoyed because we spent a lot of time to get to know the characters and seeing dwarves being dwarves and hobbits being hobbits, then they walk for ten minutes and basically get chased around for two and a half hours.

That's tiring and kills off the sense of time for the viewers.

I'm not the person to judge this movie, because both times I saw it I enjoyed every second of it and spent the whole time going "it's that one thing from that one part wheeeeeee"

Also I cannot imagine a more perfect Bilbo than Martin Freeman.

>>36262
Sounds like a good way to watch it.

>>36260
>are there no editors in Hollywood brave enough to scold him on the nose when he goes overboard with his shit?
THIS.

>dat movie

My Tolkein-loving wifey hated it, but my jimmies went unrustled throughout the entire film. Except when the eagles didn't get a conversation scene. That rustled me good.

Overall I thought it was a lot like the old cartoon, very adventurous, the chase scenes were exciting and just hokey enough to be forgiveable. Troll scene was awesome. Goblin King was awesome. They made Gollum SCARY again, which I didn't think was possible after they took away his gray skin and made him the comic relief in ROTK.

All in all it was balls of fun. More of a kids' movie than an EPIC JOOOORNEEEE, but that is 100% okay with me as films have been trying to ape the "epic journey" of LOTR for the past decade anyway.

Despite the weird framerate gimmick and the excess CGI, it just felt . . . Honest. It was a straightforward adaptation that wasn't afraid to have fun (Bilbo attacking Azog, for instance) and let things get crazy stupid now and then.

>>36264
I agree on the Eagles. Would probably shut up the people who think they're flying taxis.

Also crossing my fingers that the full Misty Mountains song is on the extended version. You make a three hour version of the first six chapters of the book and you can't even have the full song?

>>36264
>>36265
Agreed so much on the eagles. Heck, they didn't get even a "thanks". In the book the dwarves made a damn CROWN for Gwaihir.

In the book, some dwarf even knew the tongue of ravens (or crows? I forget), and since they were supposedly making this a more kid-friendly adventure movie, there isn't much of an excuse to remove it. It wouldn' be half as silly as what they made up for Radagast.

http://blip.tv/nostalgia-chick/nostalgia-chick-the-fellowship-of-the-ring-6491677
Welp.

>>36269
Dont forget the necklaces for the lords.

>>36242
Its not really Serkis undeserving of an oscar, its the small army of animators that'd go unthanked for.
I've heard so much "He should be Oscar-nominated" and no feckin' humility for his team from him.
Its a bit of a point for me, I dunno.
I just guess its about hearing what animators have to say.

>>36288
Best CGI Actor and Best Voice Actor need to be Oscar categories.

>>36299
nah those will never happen since Hollywood is scared to death of Digital Actors (hence the Avatar snub a few years back) and they have NO respect for VAs

>>36303
I might give a shit about the Oscars when they finally decide to give Jim Carrey a bunch of 'em.

>>36305
nope Comedy and Action are low tier to Hollywood. If it was fair then Sly would at least have one for either Rambo or Rocky.

>>36306
>>36305
>>36303
Horror, too. There's no horror award.

This whole "you're not highbrow enough to be recognized for your talent" thing about the Oscars is bullshit. Anyone who puts a lot of effort into something and yields an amazing result deserves to be rewarded for it.

>>36306
>>36307
It's borderline absurd that the biggest cinema awards flat out ignores so many genres.

In regard to Carrey, aside from being a comedy benchmark he proved to be a great drama actor.

I mean, Man on the Moon? Right in the feels, man. Such a great film.

>>36307
Okay, let's be real here.

I love say, Evil Dead, as much as the next guy, but it has no place at the Oscars, nor do any of its ilk. The Oscars do have their bullshit trends, but horror's absence isn't one of them.

>>36312
I don't know. I certainly agree that Evil Dead isn't necessarily the sort of thing that would be award-bait, but I think a case could be made for Alien (if only for effects / design), or more recently, Cabin in the Woods.

>>36311

Among others.

>>36313
See that's the thing: the only truly award worthy thing about horror films is the designs/effects, AND THERE'S AN AWARD CATEGORY FOR THAT ALREADY.

>>36316
I was actually holding up Cabin in the Woods for the writing.

>>36312
I'm gonna be perfectly honest and say there's not even enough horror films a year that should be nominated for anything other than the Razzies.

I mean goddamn is any other genre so dominated by awful films?

>>36319
Romantic Comedies? Supernatural Romances? Whatever genre Seltzer and Friedberg's movies occupy?

>>36320
And by god that shit doesn't get nominated or have its own category either.

Alright, fair enough. It's just for every ten shit movies we get a Cabin In The Woods or a similar ilk, and it's a shame that that can't get awards because so much of the genre is dominated by shit, and it shouldn't be. Horror can be done really well when it wants to be.