>>30900
Cannot unsee for some reason.

I think Ian McKellen prefers playing Gandalf the Grey to Gandalf the White.

>>30907
Well Grey is more adventitious and action while White is...subdued. And Grey doesn't need a comb either. End of shooting that day he just lights up and camps out in whatever hillock he finds himself in.

>Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug and the Necromancer
>Stephen Fry appearing at all
>Ian Fucking McKellen
>Martin Freeman as Bilbo
YES. YESYESYESYESYES. I'm so excited for this and I didn't even like The Lord of the Rings.

Let me guess.. Sean Connery was offered and rejected a role, AGAIN, cause he "does not understand".

>>30905

>>30910

Srsly, wtf! The man was in Zardoz! ZARDOZ! How is the comprehensibility of a film an impediment to him?

We can't let his last role be Alan Quartermaine in that shitty LXG movie, we can't!

>>30912
God was that really the last movie he's been in? I mean, really? We can't even count that cameo image of him in Indy 4, which is still bad...

>>30912
Actually his last "appearence" is Sir Billi.
Why, why, why...

>>30912
>>30915

A couple. onths ago I finally read and finished The Hobbit. I didn't realize how much singing took place! But hearing Thorin and company sing in the trailer, I became ten different kinds of excited.

WTF was with the looks shared between Galadriel and Gandalf? I get and understand the LotR framing they are using to tell The Hobbit. But I'm not quite understanding why these two would ever be alone together.

>>30915
I've heard that many of the celebs that get roped into doing this crap only get to see clips that are done with a higher budget and never know that the thing is actually a low budget POS till its too late.

>>30926
I heard Sean read the script for Indy 4 and rejected it.
Aww c'mon, why did they have to kill him off after 3? I mean, it wouldn't have hurt AT ALL to have him attend his grandson's wedding.

Borrowed a copy of the book from a friend because I haven't actually read it before. Already finding it much easier to get into than Fellowship of the Ring, which I started in sixth grade, got sixy pages in, put down, and never touched again.

>>30931
>Already finding it much easier to get into than Fellowship of the Ring
That's because Tolkien wrote it for children.

>>30931
Yea Hobbit is a bit easier since its the story of one dude that gets way in over his head during a trip....heh Dude way in over his head.

>>30932
I know. I feel no shame in enjoying a children's book more than one of the blandest things I've ever read.

That said, sixth grade was seven years ago. I might have to give Fellowship another chance soon.

>>30934
No, you're pretty much right. Lord of the Rings, like much of the copycat literature that followed, was focused on world-building and complexity of plot to the detriment of its characterization, and that makes for dry reading. There's a reason the bulk of Tolkien-style fantasy literature is seen as exclusively for nerds, and it's that most people just don't find that sort of thing entertaining.

The Hobbit was very much a personal tale about one Hobbit's journey and how he learns about himself in the process, which immediately makes it more relatable. It uses the tropes of the fantasy genre as seasoning for a much more focused story than Lord of the Rings could ever hope to be. And it's more light-hearted, too, which really makes it a lot easier to swallow than how dreadfully seriously Lord of the Rings takes itself.

And yeah, the fact that it's aimed at a younger audience is usually a positive sign in my experience.

So excited about this. Were do you guys think they'll end the first movie? I'm guessing somwere after misty monuntains, but before they're out of mirkwood.

>>30935
blah blah blah blah

>>30935
I agree with most of what you said even though I strongly loves me some LotR. But the characterization in LotR is worlds above what little there is in The Hobbit.

>>30938
From what i've heard, the first movie will end at Rivertown/the base of the mountain, and the second film will begin at that point, encompassing Smaug, the Battle Of Five Armies, the end, and then new stuff bridging The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings.

>>30941

>>30935

The problem with LoTR was that A) Tolkien needed an editor on the first book (seriously compare the width of Fellowship with Two Towers/Return of the King) and B) He was ultimately more interested in building his own mythology that he felt could be more "english" in origin. Cause King Arthur was primarily inspired by French myths and such. Which of course says NOTHING of the fact he took a lot of his inspiration from Norse Mythology. So what, French inspiration = TERRIBLE but Norse inspiration = AWESOME?

The Lord of the Rings/Silmarilon was meant to construct a mythology instead of tell a simple or concise story. He defiantly improved once he did Two Towers/Return of the King but MY GOD did somebody need to slap his wrist while he was writing Fellowship of the Ring and tell him to stop typing nonsense about scenery and get to the actual meat of the fucking story.

>French inspiration = TERRIBLE but Norse inspiration = AWESOME?
Uh, yes actually.

>>30951
Sometimes... I'm really happy there weren't really "rules" set on fiction writing back in Tolkien's days at Oxford. For modern readers Fellowship might sometimes be seen as a slog. But in the end the universe building Tolkien did has driven and guided untold numbers of fantasy worlds created after him.

I have yet to hear a voice sample of Cumberbatch as Smaug/Necromancer. Does it exist?

>>30951
He was always more of a scholar than an author. And I respect him for that.

Also a lot of it was designed to mimic antiquated styles of storytelling and whatnot. Long-winded descriptions of minute details used to be all the rage.

>>30953
>But in the end the universe building Tolkien did has driven and guided untold numbers of fantasy worlds created after him.

And as much as I've enjoyed the results, sometimes I feel like too much fantasy is chained to the standards he set. This is a genre where everything should be possible! People should try to emulate his creative drive, not just the results of it.

Sorry I've just been sitting on that opinion for a while.

>Richard Armitage's singing

>>30952
Bitch I will cut you.

>>30959
Nice, I failed to realize my last few posts have been name-less. Anyway.

No need to apologize for your opinion, nor should you feel like it's something to have "sat on" for some time. There is a balance, and at times it is clear that too many people are happy to leave fantasy genre well within Tolkien definitions, rather than challenge fantasy with their own imaginings. (Maybe this is why I'm latching on to Gunnerkrigg so well lately?)

>>30961
France sucks.

>>30966
Omelette du fromage

70s Smaug will always be the best Smaug.

>>30971
Benedict Cumberbatch is voicing him in this. The odds are not in 70's Smaug's favor.

>>30973
They rarely are.

70's Gollum on the other hand was way more intimidating than Andy Serkis, or at least the voice performance was. Then again all Rankin and Bass needed him to be was a crazy cave monster rather than anything mildly sympathetic.

The Hobbit - Directed by Jules…
This one?

>>30981
I miss the glazed cave eyes.

THE HOBBIT, Production Video #5 [HD]

>>31037
Wow, his hair is so grey.

>>30951
Silmarillion wasn't ever meant to be a single, coherent work. After Tolkien died, his son went through all the stuff he'd written but hadn't published yet, pulled out the most coherent, internally consistent set, and put it in print. That gigantic, twelve-volume "History of Middle-Earth" series of books is from the same body of material.

Slightly related but Gene Deitch, the guy who did those weird Tom and Jerry cartoons, was working on a Hobbit animated adaptation. All that came out of it was this animatic he had to prepare in about a month and well, see GIF

The Hobbit.mp4

>>31276
Why does Dale look like Moscow?
Why did they rename Smaug "Slag" and make him look like a fish?
Why is there a princess?

>>31276
I.................................like the art style...

>>30959
agreed.
but just like there were no "set rules" about fantasy settings , the lack of editorial supervision allowed him to build that world , new writers would get their shit kicked in by editorials if they tried something like that now....unless its something like independent published stuff that allows them to by pass that kind of things.

>>31289

>>30900
>my face through that whole trailer
All dem dwarves, dat singing, hell dat everything.
I am one thoroughly giddy nerd.

So hey here's something cool: they're filming this in 48 FPS.

>>31532
This movie is going to cause so many eyegasms.

>>30900
That one fucking picture right there demonstrates that someone, somewhere listened to all my bitching and moaning about Gimli looking like your stereotypical tubby old D&D dwarf.

And if the cinematographic ending of the Battle of Five Armies can squeeze even half the amount of tears out of me that the original did, lo these many years ago, then I will concede that maybe Tolkien's works are filmable. And then start asking "where is my Silmarillion?" Seriously. I would give my eye teeth to see Fingolfin battling Morgoth.

>>31538
Have yet to read the Silmarillion, doesn't it cover the entirety of Middle Earth's history or some such?

>>31539
It's a collection of stories about the creation of Middle Earth and the First Age, when Sauron played second fiddle to Morgoth.

>>31538
>my bitching and moaning about Gimli looking like your stereotypical tubby old D&D dwarf.
Considering he was the only dwarf with serious screentime in the trilogy, I don't really see that as a bad thing. What you call stereotypical, I see as iconic; Gimli is a sound baseline for what a classic fantasy dwarf looks like. Now that we're dealing with multiple dwarves though, it's true that they need some visual diversity to better establish each as an individual, and we can clearly see that's been accomplished. Each one of them has his own distinctive look, yet they're all still firmly dwarven (although Kili is kind of a pretty-boy for a dwarf).

>>31559
Is the one at the far right Kili? Because yeah, I noticed when I first saw the picture that he appeared to have been carved of solid smolder.

>>31559
That's a very good point. I've just never felt that the classic fantasy dwarf really does Gimli (or the Khazâd in general) justice. Maybe it's just the passage of years. When I think 'classic fantasy dwarf' I think of the illustrations of dwarves from AD&D2e/1e and maybe the film Willow.

>>31561
I prefer to never think of Willow under any circumstance.

>>31539

It's probably my favourite of the books, but that's just because I like world building and it has legends and junk it in.

Dwarves aren't featured too much though. And you'll know why if you read it.

>>31554
>>31563
Welp, guess I know what book I'll be moving up the list of books to read through.

>>31562
Is it that much worse than I remember it?

>>31603
Rodyle is clearly drunk. Willow was great.

>>31608
Granting that I've only seen the movie once, I remember it being EXTREMELY annoying.

Awesome!

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2012/02/08/53459-billy-connolly-joins-the-hobbit-cast-official-release/#more-53459

>>31776
... huh.

>>31609
You mean the protagonist was extremely annoying.

>>32031
Wait, you mean Mad Martigan wasn't the protagonist?

http://screenrant.com/hobbit-3-peter-jackson/

I trust in Peter Jackson.

Wait... people DON'T like Willow? O_O

>>31538
>I would give my eye teeth to see Fingolfin battling Morgoth.
Did you catch the homage in Eowin against the Witchking fight, though?

Peter confirmed on Facebook, we're in for a trilogy.

I want to call "bullshit" on the obvious moneygrab here, but I know I'm going to see them all anyway. Also they'll probably all be great.

Damn it Pete, why do you have to be so smart and talented?

The Hobbit Animated 1977 Full Movie
Oh my God I forgot how gorgeous these backgrounds are.

Potential subtitles for reconfigured Hobbit series include Riddles in the Dark and Desolation of Smaug

>>34634
Did you forget how terrible everything else is?

>>34637
No you malignant ragamuffin.
Besides, this is a thousand times better than the Ralph Bakshi stain.
Good God how I hate Bakshi.

>>34640
Though the Gag Dub is one of the funniest videos I've ever seen, no joke.

Ralph Bakshi's Lord of the Rin…

Oh my God.
Thank you.

>>34683
It's always a pleasure to share. I have fond memories of seeing the Horn of Gondor joke for the first time.

>Alright Sam, let's row in opposite directions. It's efficient! Like a see saw or something.

>Not a single woman in the cast

Gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.

>>34723
Actually looks like they're making up a new character just for the movie, if I recall... which is lame. They're also including Cate Blanchett as Galadriel from the books' "deleted scenes".

Considering I hated reading The Hobbit with a fiery passion, I'm hoping the movies are more entertaining. I honestly could not give less of a shit about all those drawfs and the singing and whatever.

LotR may have been slower paced, but at least the characters are more fleshed out than "he's a bit loud sometimes"

>>34736
Funny you should say that, I found the Hobbit to be much better written precisely because it was more character-driven and less plot-driven. The dwarfs didn't have much character, but it wasn't their story--it was Bilbo's. Everything we saw was through the lens of what Bilbo was going through at the time, and that made the whole thing feel a lot more personal and human than the Lord of the Rings (which always felt like it was more about what was happening than who it was happening to) ever felt to me.

>>34723
Quite the opposite, I heard they were adding a warrior elf princess as a hamfisted token. I really hope she isn't going to fall in love with Gandalf or Bard or anything, because that would just be stupid.

>>34634
shit I remember they used to air commercials of that on Cartoon Network when I was a kid
character designs actually gave me nightmares

>>34741
I'll agree with you that I preferred The Hobbit. Where as with the first I could read through it and love, the damn first chapter of LotR KILLS me. God, why would you ever talk about silverware that long...

But yeah, it's feels like much more of a dredge as you experience more of the world than you do the particular inhabitants. Then again, I absolutely love reading well made and complex world building, so that is enough of a plus to help me through the reading process.

>>34746
Love interest for one of the dwarves. Either Fili or Kili I think.

The Hobbit- An Unexpected Jour…

>>35226
HYPE REINVIGORATED

>mfw book purists

>>35226
That guy on a sort of sleigh... was that who I think it is? :D

>>35231
Radagast the Brown.

>>35232
...Ah.
I really expected him to be Tom Bombadil, but a Radagast is fine too, I guess. :/

QUESTION: Is Beorn in the movies?

>>35234
It's a suuuuuuuuuuur-priiiiise...
Yep, he is.

>>35234
Yep. He's been shifted to the start of movie 2.

So the wargs look like wolves now instead of hyenas.

The Great Goblin is an ugly son of a bitch.

>>35298
Oh yeah, I had seen them on a poster, yay!

Too bad they can't retcon it in the LotR trilogy. That was one of the things that didn't sit well with me on them.

>>35298
Yeah, its not like animals for diffrent area's have look diffrent. /sarkasem

And here's the new, original elf character, Tauriel.

>>35327
And will she be replacing the dude at the end who nailed Smaug in the book?

>>35328
No, she's here just to make the adventure not a total sausage-fest.

>>35329
Considering the lord of the rings movies. This seems weird because why does it matter?

>>35332
> Considering the lord of the rings movies.

The same movies that expanded Arwen's role from barely a mention in the books, to a full secondary character?

>>35327
Say what you want, she is cute and waifu material :3

But seriously, this isn't surprising at all. They are expanding the book to the same lenght as LOTR, of course stuff has to be added.

>>35340
Maybe she'll be carrying the arrowhead or bow stuff. and 'Dalf will be all "Hey baby did you bring that dragon killing sumbitch item." and she'll be "Hell yea Gandalf hunny".

Aside from my funny mental images of this being shot in '70s style (with Gandalf being more pimp then earthly possible) what exactly is in the unfinished and supplemental works that could be added to this next trilogy?

>>35328
>>35329
She's supposed to be a waifu for one of the dwarfs. Either Fili or Kili.

>>35347
noice, great to see a dwarf getting some of that.

I wonder if they'd just release a reversed extended trilogy on DVD. Like, "the book version!". I'd like that.

> elf girl and a dwarf

Okay, call me a purist, I don't care

What the hell?

Gents, I am curious, what do you think are the odds of these elements surviving the translation inot the films:

> the three trolls as depicted in the book
> silly drunken elves being silly and drunken
> dwarves and Bilbo doing a barrell roll
> Beorn's animal butlers
> talking spiders
> Smaug actually speaking. Not using telepathy or something, but moving his mouth and words coming out of it.

>>35376
Smaug is known to be motion captured to some degree, presumably this is for his face.

>>35376
> the three trolls as depicted in the book
There was some of them on the trailer... I think there's gonna be a bit of a fight, but ultimately might remain the same?
> dwarves and Bilbo doing a barrell roll
From the long poster, I think it's happening. On the second movie or so.
> Beorn's animal butlers
Hmmm the only image I saw of him was as a bear, come to think of it. Still gonna wait to see, the movie seems more light hearted than LotR anyways.
> talking spiders
Oh boy, Bilbo trolling the spiders... that I wanna see.

>Gents, I am curious, what do you think are the odds of these elements surviving the translation inot the films

For the most part, things are only changed for one of the following reasonings:

- Not enough time. (Books often have a great deal of material cut due to time constraints. With the Hobbit being extended into three movies, that will not be a problem).

- Does not translate well into that media format. (Books and movies are different media. A description that works in a person's imagination as stimulated by the written word will sometimes not work the same in a visual medium. Considering that this is a children's fantasy work, and the images are very simple, and the book was illustrated already, I do not see how this will be a problem, especially with the scenes you mentioned.)

- The audience will not like it. (Scenes will be cut if the prospective audience might think they are stupid or unfitting, for lack of a better way to put it. Considering this is a family film, that mostly does not apply, except possibly the drunk elves because elves are usually portrayed as being stoic and intelligent in media and people might not want to see a deviation from that. Considering the hype and popularity of the LoTR movies, however, I am fairly sure the audience will be willing to accept anything in Tolkien's vision.)

- The MPAA will not like it. (Basically, sex and drug use and cursing and violence will be cut to secure a lower rating. Considering the rating will probably be PG-13 like the LoTR movies, there might actually be MORE violence than the book. If they want to shoot for PG [I seriously doubt it!] then it will be exactly like the book, which was for children in the first place.)

- It helps continuity. (Possibly minor changes to the timeline because it is a single book made into multiple movies. Not inclusion/exclusion of single scenes. However, there are things that were different in the LoTR movies that were different in the Hobbit, that people may be expecting to remain the same. Things such as Gollum's behavior and manner of speech, elvish behavior, and spiders being mute murder machines. I can't really decide which way this might go.)

- The director is a pompous douche that will make creative changes just because he can. (I don't think Peter Jackson is like that. He had good reasons for all the changes he made in LoTR, I think.)

>>35391
>The director is a pompous douche that will make creative changes just because he can.
Pic related.

>>35391
>a bunch of elves added just so they could die in Helm's Deep
>hyena Wargs
Probably a lot more stuff I don't recall. I'm still worried. I mean, they ARE stretching the movies and adding some random love interest "just because they can".

I don't get why they pick great stories that aren't about romance, and shoehorn romance onto them. There are plenty with it out there already.

>>35395

I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a movie without romance in it, anymore. Even children's movies which feature very young protagonists will have a (however slight) romantic element. Call it the oversexualization of America, but it's indicative of reality, at least. Even kindergartners usually have a "boyfriend"/"girlfriend", which is a mere social status partnership than anything romantic/sexual (and often not directly stated or reciprocated), but still. I'm not sure what happened to the idea of "cooties" until becoming a teenager, but it was thrown out the window sometime in the last ten years. Fuck, even THE LORAX was made into a pubescent love-story, because frank environmentalism is boring and that is what is expected nowadays in movies.

I mean, at least they're probably not going to insert a romantic subplot between Bilbo and Smaug... right? Guys? Back me up here...? Please??

>>35395
Heh Spoony discussed about doing a LOTR pnp and about the nuances of those that don't like altering the source material and the DMs problems with everyone wanting to be a main character . His brother went nuts over the elves at Helm's Deep.

Think we'll see wizards other than Gandalf in this movie series? Personally I'd like to see some of the Blue Wizards in the Far East.

>>35398
Radagast is guaranteed to appear, and Christopher Lee is reprising his role as Saruman.

>>35397
> I'm sorry, but there is no such thing as a movie without romance in it, anymore.

Well, other than continuining the pre-established Tony x Pepper relationship, Avengers was free of romantic plots.

>>35404
Also, Dredd.

>>35397
>anymore

I hate when book purists act like Jackson "raped the lore."

>>35568

>Arabian Saruman is not amused

>>35531

What are you talking about? That movie had a huge romantic subplot!

It was Dredd x The Law.

>>35573
>Pirate Ken is Amazed

>>35586
are...are we actually going to do this

New TV trailer up on their Facebook page.

http://www.facebook.com/TheHobbitMovie

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=35587

>2 hours, 40 minutes

The shortest one yet.

http://io9.com/5954767/massive-secrets-of-the-hobbit--revealed

Tracks from the soundtrack are coming online.

This is Radagast's theme

The Hobbit Soundtrack - Radagast The Brown

I'm interested in this both because I'm one of those people that liked the book even though I couldn't get far into Lord of the Rings and I'm really curious about what a movie at a higher framerate is like (even if I have to go halfway across town to get to a theater where I can see it).

>>36068
I'm actually worried about how this new experimental stuff might mess up the movie. The new cameras they're using messes up the color in a new way, and for the 3D effects they used a lot more chroma-key shots instead of shooting on location.

>>36072
Don't be. The few reviews coming in say The Hobbit is just as much a LotR film as the previous three, just crisper-looking and with even better executed special effects.

That's all the cameras are doing, providing an even sharper, HD picture on the big screen. Most of the scenes are still shot on location with real props, so it shouldn't be an issue like it would for a CGI-heavy monstrosity like Sam Raimi's Spider-man movies or (shudder) The Matrix Trilogy.

>>36073
Speaking of reviews, a few of them are complaining that it's not as epic as LotR and too long. And then there are morons comparing this to Harry Potter and that it's The Phantom Menace all over again.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Jour…

>>36074
Oh wow, so they had no clue that those were exactly the points?
Though the "too long" part can be worrysome, specially with all the stretching over three movies thing.

>>36077
Neat though!

The reason the 45 frames conversion is a big deal is because people don't want to wait months to see a 3-D IMAX of a film they've been looking forward to, only to walk out halfway through because they're having a migraine so bad, they end up throwing up.

Although if you have a weak stomach and you're aware of it, you should probably skip out on IMAX'es entirely. There's no shame in seeing the "regular" version.

>>36074
> it's not as epic as LotR

Well, DUH.

Хоббит: Нежданно…

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/12/12/the-hobbit-review-peter-jacksons-return-to-middle-earth-is-a-triumph/

Just got back from the movie.

Really good, though I kinda wish I'd have gone to a cinema with a sharper focus on the projector or something. That's often been a problem with watching big action scenes in the cinema, in my experience.

Also, did anyone else keep thinking 'did they add this in or did I just forget this part of the book' throughout the film?

In any case, time to wait another year.

>>36144
If it's something you don't remember directly from the book, chances are it's from the appendices in RotK.

>>36146
There's supposed to be some stuff from Unfinished Tales, too.

Why are 90% of dwarves in every movie Scottish? Not that I mind real 'cause dwarves are rad as heck, but what's the shig about that.

>>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.