I saw it on Monday. I enjoyed it even if it took me a while to remember how to walk afterwards (everyone staggering out the cinema stretching their legs).
The riddle scene was brilliant, shame Gollum won't feature in the other two films. Visually you cannot fault the film, stunning special effects ranging from stone giants to the really really ugly king of the orcs (has a bigger chin than Johnny Bravo).
The downfall of Smaug's up next, just 12 months to go
Girls have got balls. They're just a little higher up that's all. Joan Jett
Why the balls would you need to watch LOTR to understand The Hobbit? The Hobbit is set a long time before LOTR. If anything, watching The Hobbit makes LOTR easier to understand.
By Silent-Rage [193964]
Why the balls would you need to watch LOTR to understand The Hobbit? The Hobbit is set a long time before LOTR. If anything, watching The Hobbit makes LOTR easier to understand.
yeah the confused me too!... I was thinking..wait.. what...
By RafsterGangsta [1138376]
What I meant about "fully understand" is that some people may not know why the Ring is important, how did smeagle become like that etc.
I've watched most of it and will finish the rest of it tonight when i get home.
Its ok but kind of drags on a lot but seeing more areas of Middle Earth compared to the LoTR trilogy is interesting and how it kind of talks about other Ages in the history.
By Silent-Rage [193964]
Why the balls would you need to watch LOTR to understand The Hobbit?
the simple answer is : you don't
By RafsterGangsta [1138376]
What I meant about "fully understand" is that some people may not know why the Ring is important, how did smeagle become like that etc.
Love the riddle scene.
i get the impression you haven't read the book ... which, unsurprisingly, was written and published before LOTR, this makes any future importance of the ring irrelevant to the current story
right now the ring is only important because it confers invisibility
Wonderful movie. Saw it at the new IMAX theater in town. Loved the 3D effects. Did much more justice to the story than the old animated version that was done before. I am really looking forward to the other 2 parts. I have been a big Tolkien fan for years and have probably read the books at least a dozen times over the years and always get some new nuance out of them. I may actually go see this one again even at the $17 price. Well worth it imo.
Yeah it was $17.00 at the IMAX for the HUGE curved screen. That is a special kind of theater, at the regular 3d theater is was like $12 or $13. I guess it is sort of the difference between flying coach or 1st class. I splurged.
By Richardv [1103695]
So this movie takes place before LOTR? I dont really like those types of films, i guess it can be somewhat interesting to see how things played out.
Its not a prequel like Star Wars was, Hobbit was wrote before Lord Of The Rings. The hobbit focuses on areas that Lotr's didn't such as the dwarven race, who they were and where they came from etc. Although its set in the same place as Lotr the only thing that crosses over I am led to believe is Bilbo coming into possession of the ring. In Lotr Gollum knows that Bilbo had the ring, however in Lotr we don't see how he knows that Bilbo has it but in the Hobbit it clearly shows how Gollum knew about Bilbo having it.
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
By Cathead [1581564]
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
Sounds like you got what you paid for.... which was nothing for a pirated version of the film on the internet. I have read the book quite a few times as well and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tolkien was quite a master of words and mental imagery. Perhaps you would prefer something with more errm visual pictures?
By Cathead [1581564]
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
They are taking bits from the Silmarillion and other works by Tolkien. And you didn't finish watching an internet rip, so no, not really a good source for judging a movie.
By Cathead [1581564]
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
Sounds like you got what you paid for.... which was nothing for a pirated version of the film on the internet. I have read the book quite a few times as well and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tolkien was quite a master of words and mental imagery. Perhaps you would prefer something with more errm visual pictures?
More visual pictures!? as opposed to what other kind of pictures, pray tell? I like books more than films as a rule of thumb. The book of the hobbit is far better than part one of the film. And I know that the poster above says they will use other material too but it sounds more like a money making ploy than anything else to me.
And to be fair- yes it would be better in a cinema but that wasn't an option and I certainly won't be going to watch it in a cinema when it does come out near me. Everything is better in a cinema, it doesn't change the pacing problems. Glad so many people enjoyed it though, but I didn't.
By Cathead [1581564]
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
Sounds like you got what you paid for.... which was nothing for a pirated version of the film on the internet. I have read the book quite a few times as well and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tolkien was quite a master of words and mental imagery. Perhaps you would prefer something with more errm visual pictures?
More visual pictures!? as opposed to what other kind of pictures, pray tell? I like books more than films as a rule of thumb. The book of the hobbit is far better than part one of the film. And I know that the poster above says they will use other material too but it sounds more like a money making ploy than anything else to me.
And to be fair- yes it would be better in a cinema but that wasn't an option and I certainly won't be going to watch it in a cinema when it does come out near me. Everything is better in a cinema, it doesn't change the pacing problems. Glad so many people enjoyed it though, but I didn't.
Dude, you say you like reading, and enjoyed the book, but you are complaining about the pacing? I know you said you have, but I have to ask, have you ever read Tolkein? The pacing, seriously?
By Cathead [1581564]
Was I the only one who thought it was fairly shit?
I didn't watch it all the way through because my internet cut out and I went to bang my head against the wall a few times. Much of it played out like a very bad pantomime in my opinion. The dwarves were over the top, I only liked Gandalf and Bilbo. Visually it was incredible, but the p.........a.........c......e..... was unbearable (as were the songs).
How they are getting 3 films out of a book as slim as The Hobbit is beyond me. I think it would make a great stand alone movie or duology(sorry for the foul word) at a stretch. By the third book they will have the Dwarves all redecorating Bilbo's house after having slain the dragon then two hours of watching the paint dry.
Sounds like you got what you paid for.... which was nothing for a pirated version of the film on the internet. I have read the book quite a few times as well and thoroughly enjoyed it. Tolkien was quite a master of words and mental imagery. Perhaps you would prefer something with more errm visual pictures?
More visual pictures!? as opposed to what other kind of pictures, pray tell? I like books more than films as a rule of thumb. The book of the hobbit is far better than part one of the film. And I know that the poster above says they will use other material too but it sounds more like a money making ploy than anything else to me.
And to be fair- yes it would be better in a cinema but that wasn't an option and I certainly won't be going to watch it in a cinema when it does come out near me. Everything is better in a cinema, it doesn't change the pacing problems. Glad so many people enjoyed it though, but I didn't.
Dude, you say you like reading, and enjoyed the book, but you are complaining about the pacing? I know you said you have, but I have to ask, have you ever read Tolkein? The pacing, seriously?
But in my imagination it's not pantomimic. I read the Hobbit and loved it. I got through 2 and a half books of the trilogy before I gave up if I must be honest. That was because of the pacing and I lost interest in the billion place names and characters that sounded like they were welsh. I don't remember the Hobbit being all that slow. Was a long time ago that I read it, though.
I also expect films to be fairly fast paced, I'm sure that's probably not the best trait to have when watching 'an epic' but hey-ho. I wasn't a fan and was just wondering if anyone else agreed.
Also, I've just realised that by "visual pictures" she meant as opposed to mental imagery... *feels a little embarrassed*
Fair enough I guess, I don't think you said that correctly if I'm understanding you though. Anyway, usually I'm disappointed in film adapations because they don't pantomome everything that I've imagined and experienced and assigned context to as a reader.
I got through 2 and a half books of the trilogy before I gave up if I must be honest. That was because of the pacing and I lost interest in the billion place names and characters that sounded like they were welsh. I don't remember the Hobbit being all that slow. Was a long time ago that I read it, though.
Also fair.
I also expect films to be fairly fast paced, I'm sure that's probably not the best trait to have when watching 'an epic' but hey-ho. I wasn't a fan and was just wondering if anyone else agreed.
Also fair I guess, frankly I was like "ole PJ is making a trilogy out of the Hobbit? give me a break." However, I was also really pissed about what was left out of the LOTR. Or not so much even that, I'm not saying NO TOM BOMBADIL? WAAAH (although that is a totally legitimate complaint wtf PJ), I'm more pissed that the point (?) of the story was kind of lost. I always thought of the hobbit/lotr as a great example of how small/unnocited/whatever people can turn the world on its axis amidst the so called great events of men. Both the beginning of the journey and the rocking of the barrow downs AND the f**king END OF THE BOOK where they are like "Saruman running shit? not in my shire bitch" are just totally gone, the hobbits were nothing but comedic relief in PJs trilogy, made me sick.
ANYWAY, NERD DIGRESSION! Just saying f**k Peter Jackson no matter what he does I guess.
Fair enough I guess, I don't think you said that correctly if I'm understanding you though. Anyway, usually I'm disappointed in film adapations because they don't pantomome everything that I've imagined and experienced and assigned context to as a reader.
I got through 2 and a half books of the trilogy before I gave up if I must be honest. That was because of the pacing and I lost interest in the billion place names and characters that sounded like they were welsh. I don't remember the Hobbit being all that slow. Was a long time ago that I read it, though.
Also fair.
I also expect films to be fairly fast paced, I'm sure that's probably not the best trait to have when watching 'an epic' but hey-ho. I wasn't a fan and was just wondering if anyone else agreed.
Also fair I guess, frankly I was like "ole PJ is making a trilogy out of the Hobbit? give me a break." However, I was also really pissed about what was left out of the LOTR. Or not so much even that, I'm not saying NO TOM BOMBADIL? WAAAH (although that is a totally legitimate complaint wtf PJ), I'm more pissed that the point (?) of the story was kind of lost. I always thought of the hobbit/lotr as a great example of how small/unnocited/whatever people can turn the world on its axis amidst the so called great events of men. Both the beginning of the journey and the rocking of the barrow downs AND the f**king END OF THE BOOK where they are like "Saruman running shit? not in my shire bitch" are just totally gone, the hobbits were nothing but comedic relief in PJs trilogy, made me sick.
ANYWAY, NERD DIGRESSION! Just saying f**k Peter Jackson no matter what he does I guess.
Yeah pantomimic might not be the word I want, I wanted to type 'pantomimetic' but I'm fairly sure that's not a word. Pantomime-like. The dwarves are like clowns, all the detail has gone into making them look so different and they have generic characters like "the fat one", "the stupid one" much like Disney. And the choreographed songs were just lame.
My main gripe with the LOTR films was that the endings were never endings. You went to get out of your seat about 10 times with each film because they could have ended but didn't, then didn't again and so on.
I do totally agree with your point about the hobbits and 'the point' of the tale. Also Frodo was a whiney bitch.
![Rafster [1138376]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1138376-9237-large.png "Rafster [1138376]")
![DelGirl [621704]](http://awardimages.torn.com/621704-16736-large.png "DelGirl [621704]")
![MagnusHarvest24 [1655145]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1655145-22266-large.png "MagnusHarvest24 [1655145]")
![Silent-Rage [193964]](http://awardimages.torn.com/193964-27456-large.png "Silent-Rage [193964]")
The Hobbit is set a long time before LOTR. If anything, watching The Hobbit makes LOTR easier to understand.
![bloodbaine [1580503]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1580503-82870-large.png "bloodbaine [1580503]")
![Duke_Bloodraker [993952]](http://awardimages.torn.com/993952-52412-large.png "Duke_Bloodraker [993952]")
![Gungrave [470221]](http://awardimages.torn.com/470221-45004-large.png "Gungrave [470221]")
![JSnows [14906]](http://awardimages.torn.com/14906-46437-large.png "JSnows [14906]")
![DarkBliss [1575396]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1575396-57333-large.png "DarkBliss [1575396]")
![Richardv [1103695]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1103695-23040-large.png "Richardv [1103695]")
![TheOutlawTorn [1575776]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1575776-59023-large.png "TheOutlawTorn [1575776]")
![Cathead [1581564]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1581564-75842-large.png "Cathead [1581564]")
![Phegasus [463442]](http://awardimages.torn.com/463442-18746-large.png "Phegasus [463442]")
![Skunkdoctor [1371548]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1371548-62086-large.png "Skunkdoctor [1371548]")
![L-0ki [1357445]](http://awardimages.torn.com/1357445-99998-large.png "L-0ki [1357445]")
Follow @TornRPG