All Hobbit/LotR (etc.) related discussions can be posted here. :)
----------------------------------------------------------
Best in flight safety video -- ever!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzft3...eature=g-all-u
Printable View
All Hobbit/LotR (etc.) related discussions can be posted here. :)
----------------------------------------------------------
Best in flight safety video -- ever!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rzft3...eature=g-all-u
I have aquired a replica narsil sword thanks to Towers_Spy :D and also sat down and did a marathon with 2 friends of the directors cut version of LOTR trilogy... ~12 hrs on a sofa, felt so sore afterwards.
Can't wait until the Hobbit is released! My wife and I are huge fans of the LOTR trilogy and went to see them every Boxing Day when they were released. For three years it became a tradition. We'll continue that tradition with the Hobbit.
I only like that Gollum thing. The rest of it sends me to sleep.
We are also looking forward to the Hobbit, should be good!
I saw some Hobbit toys today (well, I first saw them last week - I think they look a lot worse than Toy Biz's LOTR toys) and I noticed that Legolas is in it. It's been nearly 5 years since I last read The Hobbit, but I don't recall Legolas being in it. (o_O) Have I missed something, or is Peter Jackson just sticking him into his version of The Hobbit? I'm not necessarily objecting per se (depends on what Legolas does and how he affects the story I suppose), but I just want to clear this up... did Legolas appear in the original book of The Hobbit?
I know it should come as no surprise that Jackson would do something like this... after all he omitted and included a few characters in Lord of the Rings that deviated from the books, such as replacing Glorfindel with Arwen and having that cadre of Elves march to reinforce the Rohirrim at Helm's Deep in Two Towers (which strategically makes no sense -- if the Elves, unlike in the book, decided to honour the old Alliance, then wouldn't it be more logical to reinforce Gondor instead of Rohan?), the omission of Tom Bombadil (which I'm glad for... I never liked him), the omission of the entire Scouring of the Shire (which was a shame, I was really looking forward to that) etc etc.
So yeah, it'll be interesting to see what Jackson changes. I would assume that he'll be omitting a lot less with the Hobbit, since he's taking a single book and expanding into three movies. That should give him a lot more "breathing space" than when he made LOTR and tried to compact complex books into three films. The Hobbit isn't quite as complicated as the Lord of the Rings (it's written at a younger age group than LOTR - I first read The Hobbit in primary school, whereas LOTR is better suited for teenagers).
You're right Gok, Legolas was never in the hobbit. And for that matter, neither was Galadriel, yet Cate Blanchett is in the hobbit as well. When you are stretching what is essentially a kids book out to 3 movies, I suppose you have to create a few extra characters and plot lines to fill the space.
The other reason for them that I just thought of might be to expand along the Necromancer plot line from the book. The only reference in the book was Gandalf telling the others about events with him and saying to stay the hell away and at the end of the book to say he was driven out of the wood. Peter Jackson may expand upon this idea and turn it into a major story line in the movies.
We'll see…:)
Pretty much on the money. The White Council takes a much larger role in the Hobbit trilogy, means there can be a big battle in all three films, and may even lead to a bridging of sorts in the third film, maybe where a young Aragorn tracks Gollum?Quote:
Originally Posted by Trent
IMDb reviewer accuses Lord of the Rings of being a "rip off" of Harry Potter
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...imeratchet.jpg
Ego mibo orch, dôl gîn lost pe-channas!! :rolleyes: (that's Sindarin-Elvish for "Go kiss an Orc, empty-headed dumbass!" :p
For those who have only seen LotR, but never read a page of any of Tolkien's work, they'll probably like the Hobbit. Those who did not like LotR will not like the Hobbit, and those that love the Hobbit book will not like many segments of the Hobbit film.
I won't say too much or add any spoilers, but there was far too much unnecessary fanservice from LotR (Why Weathertop???) and many will be thinking that the Hobbit just steals and reuses ideas from the trilogy.
The parts of the film that are actually from the book are pretty good and the changes are mostly acceptable, but some are a little "why bother" while the new substory was terrible. Absolute garbage that was added to pad out the story, give some minor conflict and add a really hurried pace to the film.
I loved the White council stuff, but I am someone who has read through everything I can find in the appendixes to Silmarillion, LotR and Unfinished tales relating to the third age. Others who have not may find this boring, but I am really interested to see how/what they do with the Dol Guldor/Necromancer subplot.
Also great to see Christopher Lee back!
Haven't had a chance to see Hobbit yet... but I like the LotR films, even with some of their deviations from the books. My favourite change in the film was the omission of Tom Bombadil, cos I can't stand that guy. :p Oh, and replacing Glorfindel with Arwen... yeah okay, Glorfindel got shafted -- but Arwen's hawt. ;) Plus we already get to see a hot male elf with Legolas later on... didn't really need TWO hot male elves like in the book, do we? :p But the Arwen sub-story in Two Towers felt like a waste of time.
I have mixed feelings about how Jackson had that cadre of Elves sent to reinforce Helm's Deep. On one hand I thought it was a cool deviation from the books, because it does have the cool "let's honour the old alliance" feel to it (whereas in the books the Elves are like, "Screw you guys, we're out of here") -- but Helm's Deep? Tactically that doesn't make sense to me. If the Elves are only going to expend ONE unit of fighters to reinforce the humans, then surely Osgiliath or Minas Tirith would have been strategically more important places to hold! Or heck, just divide that force and send half to Rohan and half to Gondor. It didn't make much sense to me seeing Elves only sent to Helm's Deep, but leaving Gondor to fend for itself when they're fighting the front line battle against Mordor.
Another scene that I was _really_ looking forward to in Return of the King was the Scouring of the Shire. Cos that's one of my single favourite parts of the books, and I was really looking forward to seeing the Hobbits wage guerrilla warfare against Saruman and his Uruk-Hai, but NONE of that happened in the film! A friend of mine explained to me that he liked this omission because it makes Frodo's quest seem more worthwhile, whereas in the book he struggles immensely to destroy the Ring in order to save the Shire (as he saw in the mirror that Galadriel showed him), but in the end it was for naught because the Shire got razed anyway (and the Hobbits enslaved). So I can see the reasoning behind it, but still... it would have been an AWESOME scene to see on film! :D
My wife has never read the Hobbit, and I intend to see the movie with her... so it'll be interesting for us to compare notes at the end of the film. :)
...that's sad to hear. :( Part of me thinks that Hobbit really should've been done as a single movie. I mean, if each of the LOTR movies could be compressed into single movies, The Hobbit could've been easily done as a single film. I thought they decided to separate Hobbit into 3 films so they could tell the entire story in more detail (whereas they had to skip lots of stuff from LOTR or it would've taken forever for the movies to end). Because LOTR does sometimes skip on details which can confuse audience members who haven't read the books (I'm talking about the regular version, the Extended Special Edition does add in extra scenes which explains more stuff, like how Aragorn isn't an ordinary human -- I know someone who watched the regular version and was wondering why the hell Aragorn seems to have super-human fighting ability; the book explains it, but not the standard version of the film).Quote:
Originally Posted by i_amtrunks
I must confess that I'm not that much of a Tolkien fan to have read the Silmarillion -- I've only read the "main books" (i.e. The Hobbit, FOTR, TT & ROTK (including appendices)). :) Although having read the Appendix on the Languages of Middle Earth means that I shudder each time one of the actors mispronounces names and words... like when some of them pronounce "Gandalf" as /ɡændælf/ ("Gand-Alf" <---incorrect) instead of /ɡændɑlf/ ("Gan-Dolf" <---correct).Quote:
Originally Posted by i_amtrunks
So why does Aragorn have super human fighting abilities? he's a ranger yes, but he's still just human isn't he?
Aragorn is a member of a special race of humans known as the Dúnedain, and as such he has a direct lineage to the race of Men from the First Age. He has a much longer life span and superior traits over most regular humans. In the events of Lord of the Rings, he's about 87 years old, and he fought alongside Thénger, Éowyn's grandfather (and Théoden remembers Aragorn from his childhood). He's not super human, but he is physically superior... like he can perform physical feats at elite Olympian levels. So it's possible for a human to match him, but not bloody likely for most folks. :)
This is a scene from the Extended version of Two Towers where Éowyn discovers what Aragorn is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIVpRQX90Og
To compress the Hobbit into one film, I fell they would have had to cut down all the little events into 2-3 minutes action sequences, so two films makes sense (the break should have been the company floating down the river running in barrels). I was hoping for the two films on the Hobbit and the third to be a bridging movie following Smeagol/Gollum and Aragorn or somesuch, possibly even showing a story about the Nazgul terrorising the countryside in between the hobbit and LotR, but it wont happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
The second film will likely have a big focus on the white council vs. the necromancer while the hobbits are in Mirkwood/Lakemen. Then the third can focus on the Smaug/Five armies portions. Remember in the Hobbit, we know nothing of the battle as Bilbo passes out.
I wonder which Transformers I should bring to each film. My gut instinct is to go with Transmetal 2 Megatron (re: "Smaug"), but maybe I should only bring him to the third movie. So which ones to bring to Parts 1 and 2? Maybe Polar Claw to Part 2 (re: "Beorn" - yeah, I know he's not a polar bear, but I don't have Barbearian :p)... and I have no idea what to bring to Part 1. Meh... I might just bring Megs to all 3 (I've taken the same Iron Man Transformer toy w/ me to the cinemas to see Iron Man, Iron Man 2 and Avengers)
My wife and I saw The Hobbit today. Having read a few reviews, we did not expect it to be as good as LoTR, but we still found it very enjoyable and entertaining.
Anyone interested in the "high fantasy" genre should not miss this.
Though I admit it feels a bit like "Fellowship of the Dwarves" with similar methods used to resolve similar situations. LOL.
And I don't know how to make three films out of two books. Making three films out of six books I can understand...
I'll be seeing it on Saturday with the wife and leaving the toys at home ;) :p
Aah ok. Wow wish I look so 'fresh' still when I'm 87 :p.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
the dunedain also have elvish blood in them, their first king was Elrond's twin brother who choose the path of man to follow he's father's line, while Elrond choose he's elf side (mother). those closest to the line of kings have the longest lives, but all numenoreans are long lived, the dunedain and men of gondor are their descendants when their island sank and they sailed to middle earth to live
Just saw The Hobbit. Pretty good and I haven't read or seen any LOTR movies r read the books. (I plan to, NOW)
I really liked it. (Especially Gollum!!!!)
Go see it. NOW.
Really makes me want to get the sets of it now.
Just got home from watching it. Upon reflection, it's an awesome movie although some may consider it to be a tad too long but that's the whole point, it's meant to be a journey. I guess I also went in with low expectations due to several not-too-flattering reviews. Bottom line - if you're a LOTR fan you WILL love this. I can't wait for the second instalment.
I just saw it today and thought it was great. So did the wife. For some reason the direction didn't quite have the same 'feel' to it as LOTR, but was good. It also didn't really give you a sense of how long they were travelling for.
Looking forward to the rest!
SO what was people's thoughts on the 3d High frame rate shenanigens, assuming you saw that one that is...
After a second viewing I enjoyed the hobbit a lot more.
Still do not like that they made it seem like a days trip from hobbiton to Rivendell or that they ignore the fact that the northwest is protected by rangers so there is o way the orcs could be at weathertop but I figure I am just being a nit picker.
Misses really enjoyed it, not sure if it was the movie or Richard Armitage she liked more.
Saw it today. Took Beast Machines Megatron with me. :) Really enjoyed it -- it was what I was expecting. I think after watching LOTR it prepared me to make realistic expectations for The Hobbit. Great music. I wanna learn that Dwarf song now. :D
I watched the Hobbit first and I think it's the only thing that's keeping me from stopping watching LOTR. Glad I did now. FOTR is a little old-fashioned but really good! Can't wait to see TTT
Been thinking about this question for a while now.
Is Gandalf human? He's not an elf, or dwarf or anything else. But he has lived much much longer than anybody else, save maybe some of the Elven leaders, but even then they didn't look that old. Although Hugo was in the battle with Sauron when he had his finger cut off wasn't he? Was Gandalf alive for that too?
Surely his magic alone isn't keeping him alive for so long.
Fair question Tets. Something that is never really delved into in the films and only details in the books are in the annals and appendixes. I'll try to keep it brief and simple, but as with anything Tolkien related, it doesn't take much to gt confusing and long winded!
Elrond is an elf, and thus immortal. Impervious to time, as are all elves, they can still die from wounds and poisoning, and surprisingly, grief. He is over 4000 years old at the end of The Lord of the rings, and still a baby compared to Galadriel and Cirdan.
Gandalf is not a man, dwarf, hobbit or elf. He is a Maiar. A Maiar is a second tier god that helped create the world long ago. The lands of Middle Earth are overseen by a pantheon of gods similar to the Greeks and Romans. These gods no longer meddle like their Greek counterparts in the mortal lands after they battled and defeated the "devil" / corrupted god thousands of years earlier.
They didn't catch Sauron who was also a Maiar and the devils second in command, and so once the gods realised he was still about causing mayhem and evil, they sent 5 Maiar of their own who would appear as old men to help inspire and guide the men and elves to defeat Sauron, rather than defeat him win heir own power (part of the reason why Gandalf and Saruman seem weak and powerless compared to Sauron). When Saruman tried to match Saurons power he was no longer supported by the gods and that's why when he was killed he turned to smoke and floated away, while Gandalf was reborn stronger and more powerful. Funnily the balrog Gandalf killed was also a corrupted Maiar, just not as powerful as Sauron.
Hope that helped...
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y22...megatronbm.jpg
Took BM Megatron with me to see The Hobbit/An Unexpected Journey. :)
The movie was what I expected it to be - an adaptive interpretation of the book with certain elements changed and inserted... and I found the insertions here to be more agreeable than say in The Two Towers. I thought the Necromancer sub plot was pretty cool, and didn't feel like it was derailing the main plot too badly. And I can appreciate why Jackson chose to do this to make The Hobbit feel more "prequelesque" in terms of giving it more obvious ties to The Lord of the Rings (and answering some questions that the LOTR trilogy didn't touch upon).
Heh... I wonder what audiences who've never read the books think about the Necromancer. Cos for those of us who have would've been quietly sitting there thinking, "Oooooooohhh!" :D
Speaking of being quiet -- I had the displeasure of sitting in front of 3 people who kept yapping during the movie. Two teenage boys and one older man who looked like their father. The kids talking is one thing... but why would the parent join in?!? I kept turning around and giving them filthy stares and making shushing sounds. Eventually one of the boys took the hint when his eyes met mine and I gave him the mother of all death stares. The other just didn't get the hint... *sigh* I really should've just yelled at them. One second of inconvenience that would've allowed the rest of the audience nearly 3 hours of quiet movie viewing. And the chatter was just pointing out the obvious like, "Look, he's picked up the sword!" -- yeah thanks, we can see that. We're not blind, we don't need an audio description (and even if you did, there are some cinemas that provide it). Seeing some kids talking in a cinema isn't surprising... seeing their old man doing it with them and making NO effort to manage their behaviour was just shocking. Guess the seeds don't fall far from the tree...
I found it a strange change really, Considering Gandalf had been in Dol Goldur 90 years earlier when first suspected that it was Sauron reclaiming the fortress. That was where he found Thrain and the key and map he held onto until he chanced upon Thorin.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
Having Radagast find the Necromancer in Dol Goldur in the same year/month that the Thorin expedition com to town is silly, the Necromancer was meant to be polluting the Greenwood for a hundred years. The Necromancer was meant to be seen as such a threat that Galadriel and Gandalf finally convince Saruman that the Necromancer was Sauron and Saruman wanted Sairon out of the north so he could spend more time hunting for the ring.
Having Radagat pass over the Misty Mountains so easily and quickly also annoyed me. He takes what seems like hours/ a day or so to travel what is a long treacherous trek...
Well he did have those super rabbits....:pQuote:
Originally Posted by i_amtrunks
That's my main issue with the movie I think, it didn't really give you a good idea of how long they were travelling for. It just felt like they were going for a couple of days.
And thanks for the Gandalf info. Puts my mind at ease as I have been thinking about it more than I probably should :p;):rolleyes:
Yeah. the time thing was pretty weird. Still... a much more faithful adaptation to the original source than Bayformers. :p :o :D
Oh very true. Don't get me wrong though, I still thought it was a very good, enjoyable movie. I'd see it again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoktimusPrime
Sylvester McCoy as Radagast was a great casting choice. Should have been more of him.
I love Radagast. The Rhosgobel Rabbits made him so... inviting.;):)
Just watched The Twin Towers. Very impressed. A substantial improvement over the Fellowship. I found myself dozing off less. I like this one better for sure.
All that's left is ROTK. Wish me luck!
Gollum is so AWESOME!
The Two Towers is my least favourite of the Jackson Tolkien movies... there's one particular scene that really bugs me, but I'll discuss it with you after you've seen Return of the King (cos it won't make sense until then) :) Although technically the movie ends prematurely... the first part of the ROTK movie is actually the end parts of the Twin Towers. They omitted a really epic scene from ROTK to fit it in... again, we'll talk later. ;)
My main qualm was the sending of elves to Helms Deep. Made no sense and robbed some of the victory for men. At least it wasn't Arwen like they originally planned.
A flow on stupid error from this exists in ROTK regarding Elrond.
But in truth they royally screwed Aragorn in the movie trilogy, making him unsure of his role and duty, when in the books he is one confident and secure individual with what his role and duties are.
I really liked Aragorn in the first. But the second he seemed very flawed in terms of mind and portrayal. Is ROTK good?
I think I just liked the battle eye candy in Helm's Deep. It is a pretty cool
Either that or Gollum/Smeagol. Especially the argument.
It got me thinking, are they able to cut their hair?:p
The Battle at Helm's Deep is awesome (the Battle at Minas Tirith dwarfs it ;)). And when they proclaim that the Elves have come to honour the old Alliance, I get this little tingle in my spine and a little voice cries, "YEAH!!" -- and I let myself get caught up in the moment and it's awesome. But then afterwards I think about it and go, "Heeey..." :rolleyes:
Go watch ROTK... it is definitely worth watching.
I don't care about the robbing victory for Men part, but as you said... it made no sense. If they _really_ wanted help Men then they really should've sent those Elves to Minas Tirith... a FAR more strategically logical place to fortify than Helms Deep. Reinforcing Helms Deep felt more like some wishy washy sentimental decision rather than a logical one -- something that I would not expect Elrond and Galadriel to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by i_amtrunks
Eeh... I didn't mind that so much. Sure, it made Movie Aragorn quite different from Book Aragorn in that regard, but I didn't see it as making Movie Aragorn any better or worse... just different. (JMHO) :) I would've actually preferred seeing Arwen as part of the Elven reinforcements. Sure beats watching a good portion of the film seeing her moping around having a sook. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by i_amtrunks
Oh yeah. Forgot.
Watched ROTK a couple days ago. I liked it a lot. :D