|
Admiral Goodenough posted:This cannot be stressed enough. Freeman looks crazy perfect as Bilbo, it's so exhilarating It was literally the biggest "Oh, DUH!" moment for me when it was announced. I had been fretting about who they would pick. "Who do you get to play Middle-Earth Arthur Dent?" Oh, wait...you loving get Arthur Dent.
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2011 02:32
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Effingham posted:That shot of Thorin is REALLY giving me a Gowron vibe. drat. I refuse to see this as a bad thing.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2011 03:44
|
|
|
A lot of people apparently worried about the songs prior to this trailer? Never in doubt for me. Howard Shore knows what the gently caress he's doing, y'all. That song was awesome.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 07:43
|
|
|
Quint has a new installment in his on-set series over at Ain't It Cool News. Once again a great read.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 08:03
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:The trailer was pretty low key. But then, the movie is going to be pretty drat low key if they are only covering the first half of the hobbit. If they could do the fellowship of the ring in a single movie they should be able to do the Hobbit in a (shorter) movie. As has been continually stated, it isn't just material from "The Hobbit" that is being filmed. A lot of stuff from the appendices of Lord of the Rings, which fills in several gaps in the narrative (specifically those that involve Gandalf's constant disappearing act) are in there, too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2011 15:08
|
|
|
kaworu posted:You did, of course, note that they framed it this way even in the trailer? Beginning with old Bilbo telling Frodo the complete story of his adventure? I thought it quite interesting that they started it that way, which obviously immediately gives away the fact that Bilbo will survive the adventure just fine, and then we had several quotes in the trailer both from Gandalf and Thorin discussing how dangerous the journey would be for Bilbo and how neither of them can guarantee his safety. Bit contradictory, no? Not that I minded it, because as you said, the book itself is written that way. Not to mention everybody who is familiar with LotR knows that Bilbo survives, so it's not much of a spoiler. Even so, I thought it interesting that they went so far as to establish that in the trailer in extremely clear terms. I figured they set it up this way to help set up those who aren't familiar with The Hobbit for the *actual* deaths that occur. Namely Thorin. You get them comfortable with "oh, Bilbo can't die...hey I kind of like these dwarves and OH MY GOD THEY'RE DYING"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 00:40
|
|
|
the Bunt posted:I didn't even know LOTR existed until ads for the Fellowship movie started coming out. I was so stoked to see that there was some gigantic epic that was directly related to The Hobbit! You ought to give it another shot and simply skip past the first Bombadil chapter and go right for the Barrow Downs. Literally nothing of narrative value is lost by doing this, and Bombadil is mentioned a grand total of like once more afterwards, and only as a quick aside. Once you hit The Council of Elrond, poo poo picks up quickly.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2011 10:15
|
|
|
Den of Lies posted:Production Video #5! http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150554790416807 I just want to say that Peter Jackson seems like the chillest dude and really cool to work with. Is it possible to hate the man? I submit it is not.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2011 06:15
|
|
|
kaworu posted:I was way more upset that the Scouring of the Shire was left out in RotK than Bombadil. For one thing, I think that FotR was a far, far better film that RotK in a number of ways. I won't get into it all right now, but I have significant disagreements with what they changed in RotK and how they structured the film in terms of content and pacing. I was so incredibly disappointed with that film in so many ways, because to me it represented an absolute misunderstanding of what the books were truly about. PJ said over and over again that he made the changes he did for the sake of keeping the level of tension consistent throughout the film and giving all the characters various things to do, but I really think that's a total cop-out - he made the film he wanted to make, and that was a big-budget special effects-laden war film complete with multiple, lengthy battle scenes that (to me) just made my eyes glaze over eventually. Scouring would have killed the film. I'm sorry, but it would have. For people like you and I, who know what its about and why its there, it would have been fine. For 90 percent of the movie-going audience the response would have been "Wait...the ring is gone, isn't that the point? What's going on NOW?" Like it or not, the trilogy was crafted to be pleasing to a very wide audience. The majority of people who saw the movies had never read Tolkien's books, and not making the changes they made would have hamstrung the film. They would not have been nearly as successful.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2011 17:53
|
|
|
Nuggan posted:Frodo and Bilbo go there on boats, but they eventually do die there. Can you point me to where this is stated? I've always been confused about whether Frodo, Bilbo, Sam and Gimli die over there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 20:41
|
|
|
Thanks for that. That makes a lot of sense. I like the explanation that the Elves pretty much don't know what the gently caress is going on when mortals die. I seem to recall that Eru called mortality a "gift" at some point and the Valar and Elves are pretty much left scratching their heads about it. "Dying is a gift? Whatever you say man."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 21:13
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Yeah, they die, but they live for hundreds of years. I got the impression that Dwarves live about as long as the Dunedain Men did.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2011 22:44
|
|
|
kiimo posted:Yeah I definitely read that they were gone from Middle Earth, which would put finality on the Ents as a race. Basically since this is a UK mythology everything but Men has to die out or be eradicated. Sort of. "Concerning Hobbits" conspicuously refers to them in present tense and more or less implies that they are still around (much diminished), they just stay out of sight.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2012 07:35
|
|
|
euphronius posted:The Baggins were minor nobility. Frodo even more so than Bilbo iirc. The Gamgees were common folk. Minor nobility that took a sharp upswing when Bilbo suddenly came back with a shitload of gold and created a legend. Frodo inherited that plus I believe he had closer familial ties to the Brandybucks in addition to the ties to the Tooks that he shared with Bilbo. The Baggins, Tooks and Brandybucks were power-families in the Shire/Buckland, and in true royal fashion kept marrying each other.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2012 16:09
|
|
|
Wade Wilson posted:Why do people that do these things have to always add that aggravating echo-like effect to the vocals when they record it? Do people actually enjoy hearing that (it grates on my nerves for some reason)? It's part of creating a musical Ethereal effect. By having an echo (it's really reverb in this instance), you keep the tones around longer than they would be otherwise, and this creates a small amount of dissonance in what you hear. The sound produced, coupled with the chord choices, is what we have come to recognize as ethereal, and is a favorite of music attempting to convey a sense of mythology, especially as it pertains to celtic and other anglo-saxon-centric myths.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
Crappy Jack posted:Pretty much. The higher the rating, the less money they make from large groups of teenage nerds going to see the movie together in theaters eight times in a row. PG-13 is pretty much the sweet spot these days for that.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 14, 2012 05:41
|
|
|
How many theaters are actually going to even have the tech to play the 48 fps version? I don't know how that works, but I get the feeling that the vast majority of the movie-going public will end up seeing this in 24 fps as a result, which is just fine. That's how I plan to see it, so all this 48 fps drama is a complete non-factor.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 04:32
|
|
|
TheBigBudgetSequel posted:Today's demonstration was supposed to sell theater owners on getting the technology into their theaters in time for December. I don't think that's going to happen if the reaction was as dire as it's been said to be. From a practical perspective, I'm not sure even a positive reaction would have done the trick. Why invest in the tech for this film? It's the loving Hobbit. If I'm a theater owner, I know that this movie is going to make money for me hand over fist with or without the new, fancy tech. Why blow the cash on the set-up, then? Especially since there hasn't really been anything else announced as using the 48 fps stuff upcoming. From where I'm sitting, it would be an investment for a single film. Not worth it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2012 05:04
|
|
|
Relayer posted:It's not a youtube video, because youtube can't (or doesn't) render 48fps as far as I know. It's a zip file with two high def videos shot with a RED camera, one at 24 and another at 48 fps. The difference is pretty jarring, and it's a good example for people who seem to think the issue is as frivolous as digital vs. analogue audio or something similar. I watched both, and yes, the difference is noticeable. But I kind of liked it, I guess? I don't know, it just...maybe I didn't care enough? I'm an Aural guy, after all.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 21:23
|
|
|
Just as a counterbalance they should have Howard Shore score the entire film with nothing but a 16-bit Super Nintendo audio chip.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 27, 2012 21:46
|
|
|
I think 10 years ago my late-teens, early-twenties self would have been up in arms about this...but now I find I just don't care that much. It's the kind of thing that's easy enough to ignore and frankly when you ask Hollywood to adapt something, poo poo like this is going to go down nearly every time, so I know that going in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Yep. In fact, 3 of the 4 Hobbits in LotR are just a bunch of rich kids who doss about all day. The exception being good ol' working class, salt-of-the-earth Samwise - who Tolkien made, in his infinite wisdom, the fat goony one. While this is true, Sam is arguably the real hero at the end of the day.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 12, 2012 02:43
|
|
|
SatansBestBuddy posted:I swear if they make Gandalf suspicious of the ring the second he finds it I'm gonna be so mad I might actually throw some popcorn at the screen or something. As I recall, Gandalf doesn't even really find out that Bilbo HAS a ring until much later on, although he's suspicious of Bilbo's escape story from the get-go.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 01:30
|
|
|
peer posted:"Mountain giants are a metaphor" is the new "balrogs don't have wings". For the record, both are correct Oh my god is this really A Thing that gets talked about with any amount of seriousness? Because jesus christ.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 22, 2012 21:11
|
|
|
DragQueenofAngmar posted:That double thumbs up at the bottom is really bugging me :/ That's pretty obviously just him holding the sides of his overcoat loosely.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 04:58
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:This is bugging me as well, and I found this pic of the actor with a slightly better beard: Demographic draws. You can bitch and moan about it all you like, but its a thing that you absolutely can't escape in a blockbuster like this.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2012 22:55
|
|
|
Mr. Gibbycrumbles posted:Meh, I thought this TV spot and the last trailer were pretty bad. They make the film just look like generic hollywood action fluff, You seem to be under the impression that selling a film like this to mass audiences isn't accomplished by making it look like "generic hollywood action fluff". Obviously, we know better. Most don't.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2012 16:50
|
|
|
BobTheSpy posted:Everyone on the IMDB boards already seems to loving hate this movie so much. Man, people judge poo poo quickly without actually experiencing it, don't they? The real question is what in the hell are you doing on the IMDB boards? Jesus Christ, run for your life.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2012 15:45
|
|
|
BobTheSpy posted:Some bad news guys - a critic from Slate REALLY did not like the film or the HFR - and said the Hobbit was "too long" and "too intense." I can't find this online anywhere. Do you have a link?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 2, 2012 07:08
|
|
|
Mahoning posted:Ohhhhh I can't wait to hear about the first time Harry read The Hobbit as a young boy in the first 3 paragraphs of his review! Three? Come now. Such a story cannot be contained in anything less than five. As for reviews being "good not great"...well...was it ever going to be anything else? The comparisons to LOTR will be impossible for people not to make and you just can't compared "The Hobbit" to "LOTR". They're completely different kinds of stories. The Hobbit is MUCH lighter. Of COURSE the emotional impact isn't going to be as great.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 14:51
|
|
|
InFlames235 posted:I was expecting nothing less than a 90% on rotten tomatoes This is literally the worst thing to worry about. For any film.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2012 15:37
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Tolkien hinted that the two Blue Wizards did something to drastically curb Sauron's strength and set him back some years. Actually, Tolkien never seemed to make up his mind on this and in letters outright stated a few times that he personally thought they both failed their tasks.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 06:08
|
|
|
Yeah, I actually always liked that Gandalf is an off-screen badass in that sense. Like in the Hobbit where he's always just out of the vision of the narrative when he's throwing his real power around but the after-effects give you the sense that you don't want to gently caress with this old man.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 5, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
I loved this movie. I won't pretend it doesn't have flaws, because it does, but they don't add up to enough significance in my mind, and LOTR had flaws too. The Hobbit was introduced to me by my father when I was very, very young. He read it to my sister and I over the course of a month, going a chapter a night (sometimes skipping nights due to other things going on) and it's one of my fondest childhood memories. My father did different voices for everyone, the Trolls, the Goblin King, Gollum...literally everyone. He brought that story to life for my sister and I in a way that is hard to describe, but our love of that book has been strong ever since. As far as I'm concerned, PJ might as well have been my Dad because all I could think the entire time was about that month of my youth. Yes, there were changes and additions and various other things, but I didn't care because the essence remained. An adventure story. The back half where one thing after another happens was perfect to me, and hearing voices like the Golbin King and such was a small thrill. It was just "storybook" enough. I don't care if my personal bias is "clouding" my judgement or if that somehow makes me a bad film-watcher. That poo poo can go straight to hell. This movie made me think about my Dad, and I could not care one little bit about anything else. Can't wait to see it five times.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
casa de mi padre posted:Gandalf is actually like the least important person in the room in that scene. Saruman is considered to be wiser and Galadriel/Elrond have been around for ages and participated in loads of major storyline events. It's not so much a "you need our permission" as a "hey, check with us before you go gently caress with big scary things, we've seen some poo poo man". In fact Galadriel wanted Gandalf to head the White Council in the first place. She knew from the start that he was the better choice and actually much wiser than Saruman (she is, of course, proven right later on), but Gandalf actually begged off on that. He didn't want to lead (and he actually didn't want to go to middle-earth to begin with. He didn't feel he was strong or wise enough to counter Sauron).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
BrianWilly posted:Saruman is technically Gandalf's direct superior, isn't he? He can, in fact, tell Gandalf to cut some poo poo out if he wants to. Yes. When the Valar sent the Wizards over, Saruman was "First". Gandalf was considered the Number 2. But that doesn't really mean much of anything in practical terms. In this instance Saruman is the head of the cobbled-together "White Council", which has even less authority. Technically the Wizards are above all the races in Middle Earth, which includes Elves and, thus, Galadriel and Elrond. But they're super-powerful Elves who have been around for thousands of years so they get to be part of the secret club too.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 04:49
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:Also, one of my buddies I went to see the movie kept going on about the moth that Gandalf used to summon the eagles. Is there a story there, or is it just artistic license? It's a call-back to the LOTR films where Gandalf uses a moth to summon the Eagles. A moth precedes every appearance by them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 04:57
|
|
|
Darko posted:I didn't like any of the action setpieces, but that's expected, and they were easily ignorable since this movie was so interaction-heavy. I'm not looking forward to any of the "big battles" at all, however, which doesn't bode well for the rest of the series, since that's what it will be padded with. You might be OK in the next film because I imagine that the battle of five armies will be pushed to the last one. We're bound to get a lot of character poo poo in Mirkwood, especially when we meet the elves there, and Laketown, I would imagine. quote:Well, the rest of fantasy doesn't tend to have Gandalf specifically show up. No, but a great deal of the rest of fantasy certainly wishes they had Gandalf and try their best to create a reasonable facsimile
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 18:38 |
|
|
Steve2911 posted:A 10 hour miniseries would work so much better, surely? This. Silmarillion has to be a GoT-type episodic series. There's just no other way to do it well.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 24, 2014 18:19
|
|