And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

 

Interesting.

Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

 

Strange... you saw the protagonist hobbit burglar (ok, with a bunch of dwarves, a few elves and a wizard with a staff and Glamdring), and yet you don't wanna play a hobbit burglar, you'd pick an LM. Despite Gandalf specifically said: do not take him for some conjurer of cheap tricks :)

I really hope they were careful with this movie.

This book was so integral to me as a kid. It kindled my interest to read so much so that I cant attribute my current reading voracity to anything other than that furry footed Bilbo Baggins.

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

 

Same happened to me. Tho I dont want to play specifically loremaster

Originally posted by grimal

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus

And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster

 

Interesting.

Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

Its funny, I hear everyone criticizing Jackson for making it three movies, saying it was a cash grab.

I dont see it as a cash grab at all.  He just loves filming this shit.  Self-indulgent?  Yes.  Greedy?  Not in the least.

I havent seen it yet but from reading reviews it seems that the start is very, very slow.  The dinner scene takes forever apparently.  Once they set out on the road it picks up though.

---

Originally posted by strangiato2112

---

Originally posted by grimal

---

Originally posted by Lord.Bachus And it made me want to play Lotro again, specifically a sword and staff loremaster  

---

Interesting. Is it as bloated as a lot of the critics are complaining? (the movie, not the game..lol)

---

Its funny, I hear everyone criticizing Jackson for making it three movies, saying it was a cash grab.

I dont see it as a cash grab at all.  He just loves filming this shit.  Self-indulgent?  Yes.  Greedy?  Not in the least.

 

I havent seen it yet but from reading reviews it seems that the start is very, very slow.  The dinner scene takes forever apparently.  Once they set out on the road it picks up though.

---

Yeah its a slow start and its a long ass movie. Bit damn if its not the most immersive and visually stunning movie ive ever seen. The 3d makes every other 3d movie look like a gimmick. It is straight up epic movie magic

I saw the movie today. It was fun and it was pretty much very tue to the book. I was impressed. This is Tolkien book lover dream come true. It's sort of slow pace but if you love the book, you will love it. Music is mostly re-made from LOTR so it's awesome. Thorin is great :) - very good pick. I got lucky LOL because the projector crashed while watching previews and we had 10 minutes break... they gave us passes for this inconvenience, so I think I am going to see Hobbit one more time after holidays :)

The dinner scene is one of the best, simply hilarious, I was LOL... poor Bilbo :)

Good but not great.  If you are going into this expecting a true visual representation of the book, you will be dissappointed.  There are way to many scenes and characters that will make you ask yourself if you are mis-remembering stuff.  Let me assure you that no, you are not.  Jackson has taken a TON of liberties with this production.  There are odd filler sequences, some extended silliness that was unneccessarry, and oddly represented characters that at times feel out of place.  I wont get into spoilers or discuss specifics as I do not want to ruin someone else's experience however. 

I agree with an earlier assesment that the films are over indulgent.  Cash grab?  I dunno...  but certainly over indulging Jackson's ego.  That said, it is well worth the price of admission.  The film is available in something like 6 different formats from IMAX, to 3D, to High Frame Rate, to standard, etc.  I watched the standard format after reading so many negative reviews on the high frame rate offering and I felt it was a perfect format for me.

Cinematically, it is Jackson's Middle Earth.  It is lush and beautiful.. the camera work is excellent, and the whole production is vibrant. Despite this, I felt it lacked the epic feeling of the LotR trilogy.  While I do not want to go so far as to say my childhood has been sulied I can admit that this film did not pull me in the way I expected it too, the way LotR did. 

Originally posted by Dasterdly

Good but not great.  If you are going into this expecting a true visual representation of the book, you will be dissappointed.  There are way to many scenes and characters that will make you ask yourself if you are mis-remembering stuff.  Let me assure you that no, you are not.  Jackson has taken a TON of liberties with this production.  There are odd filler sequences, some extended silliness that was unneccessarry, and oddly represented characters that at times feel out of place.  I wont get into spoilers or discuss specifics as I do not want to ruin someone else's experience however. 

I agree with an earlier assesment that the films are over indulgent.  Cash grab?  I dunno...  but certainly over indulging Jackson's ego.  That said, it is well worth the price of admission.  The film is available in something like 6 different formats from IMAX, to 3D, to High Frame Rate, to standard, etc.  I watched the standard format after reading so many negative reviews on the high frame rate offering and I felt it was a perfect format for me.

Cinematically, it is Jackson's Middle Earth.  It is lush and beautiful.. the camera work is excellent, and the whole production is vibrant. Despite this, I felt it lacked the epic feeling of the LotR trilogy.  While I do not want to go so far as to say my childhood has been sulied I can admit that this film did not pull me in the way I expected it too, the way LotR did. 

tolkien wrote the hobbit for his kids so it was never intended to be as serious as lotr

I found a couple elements to be so obviously meant to be tied into some sort of merchandising, that I could not focus on the movie for thinking about those individual elements. I was jarring to say the least.

I know people who have been waiting for the movie for twenty years, and that was not the movie they were waiting for.

Originally posted by zyklonian

Originally posted by Dasterdly

Good but not great.  If you are going into this expecting a true visual representation of the book, you will be dissappointed.  There are way to many scenes and characters that will make you ask yourself if you are mis-remembering stuff.  Let me assure you that no, you are not.  Jackson has taken a TON of liberties with this production.  There are odd filler sequences, some extended silliness that was unneccessarry, and oddly represented characters that at times feel out of place.  I wont get into spoilers or discuss specifics as I do not want to ruin someone else's experience however. 

I agree with an earlier assesment that the films are over indulgent.  Cash grab?  I dunno...  but certainly over indulging Jackson's ego.  That said, it is well worth the price of admission.  The film is available in something like 6 different formats from IMAX, to 3D, to High Frame Rate, to standard, etc.  I watched the standard format after reading so many negative reviews on the high frame rate offering and I felt it was a perfect format for me.

Cinematically, it is Jackson's Middle Earth.  It is lush and beautiful.. the camera work is excellent, and the whole production is vibrant. Despite this, I felt it lacked the epic feeling of the LotR trilogy.  While I do not want to go so far as to say my childhood has been sulied I can admit that this film did not pull me in the way I expected it too, the way LotR did. 

tolkien wrote the hobbit for his kids so it was never intended to be as serious as lotr

Reminds me of another director who made trilogy for his kids...

Jackson took artistic liscense a bit too far for my taste.  

The movie was good, but I would have liked to see more acurate representations of some major scenes.  Good representation of the world.

A lot of background material was brought to life.   What was sacrificed was the dwarves' individuality.  Not that they had much anyway, but...

I have the same feeling that I had when LOTR was made into a movie.  It's like when your favorite underground band has a major radio hit and suddenly there are all these new fans around telling you how great the band is.   It's hard to convey that you've known it all along.  It's not a bad thing.  it's just the way it is. 

There was a group of us who read the book because we were fantasy fans- or even moreso- this was the book that made us fantasy fans. 

It's what got me playing D & D. 

It turned me from a kid who hated reading into an avid reader.   

The fact that this site exists can be attributed to the book, I think.

So cheers to a bygone era and brace yourselves for the further commercialization of Middle Earth. 

It's not a bad thing.  it's just the way it is.

Here are my pro's and cons:

Con's: 

3 hrs was a bit long.

There are simply too many dwarves.  Not his fault.  Each dwarf, luckily, had a different style about them but minus Thorin, Kili, Bofur, and Bombur I couldn't tell you who was who.

Rivendell was an unnecessary.  Not really in the book (see Pro below)

Azoz was an interesting liberty taken.  But once again, it's not really true to the book.  (see Pro below)

The FREAKIN King of the Eagles didn't talk again!  GRRRRRRRR

Some of the visuals in 3D were a let down.  The CGI almost took away from where the originals had some REALLY good makeup.  I think if they'd have shot the makeup, it'd look fake so they went more heavy CG but some of the distinctiveness of the creatures in LOTR was lost.

That misty mountains song being played over and over and over and over and over and over.  Did they not see the running LOTR jokes with the LOTR version of the song playing constantly?

Pro's:

I was constantly on the edge watching.  Just when it'd lag, it'd pick back up.

Witch-King of Angmar.  AWESOME.  (didn't care for Radgast... little too far out there for me)  They needed to explain the big missing gap of Gandalf.  Hard to do in the movie without visual justifications. (i.e. White Council)

Azoz was hinted to in an appendix (if I recall).  Him being part of the hunting party tracking the dwarves makes more sense in the storyline than in the book.

The trolls were hilarious.  Moreso than the grunting snarling ones we saw in LOTR.

The riddle game was incredibly well done.

Smaug.... nice tease.  I like.

Some important background.  Anyone else notice we saw Dwarf women?!?!  Success!! They do exist :-)

Finally, next movie we should be seeing Tom Bombadill and Beorn.  Unless they cut them.  That would displease me, especially since they felt the need to add that elven female.

i wasnt able to watch it last saturday uwaaah~

and i was really looking forward to it too boo =3=

hopefullly after work sometime this week i can sneak it in my sched heh :3

I am skeptical before seeing this. The trilogy covered 3 books, all of them twice as large as The Hobbit. 9+ hours of viewing time. The Hobbit will be 9+ hours long all by itself. That sounds like a lot of filler to me. A LOT. And I am expecting them to leave something out while adding in things that weren't there.

It seems to be the way of "books to screens" these days. All in the name artistic license.