User registration set to invite-only because of spam. Email for an invite.

Lord of the Rings (Because Dave hates Twitter conversations and happiness)



  • Graz, you should write a blog on this called Wizard Judo Belt Colors.
  • edited November 2012
    ^^Gah, I love that bit so much.
  • Y'know what I've been thinking for weeks now? Someone needs to re-cut the Hobbit trailers to make it look like a heist caper with "Misty Mountain Hop."
  • image

    Wizard Judo Belt Colors

  • The direction of the Aragorn/Arwen thing sorta got lost at the end of the movies (She's dying... for some reason!)
    And that was a bit of a letdown for me, because it took away the Honorable Duty "gotta do this to be King" and turned it into "oh snap, gotta save my girl." A much less serious motivation.
  • Just watched an early screening and am very pleased with the Hobbit. The 48fps thing was a little strange at first and I'm not totally convinced that it should have been in 3D. But the movie itself is pretty much what you expect. Lost of sweeping shots of hobbit holes and forest, lots of cool orc/ goblin fights and a mysterious ring...
  • Hm, the AV Club review did not inspire much confidence in me, but I'm seeing it with a friend tomorrow, so I'll see for myself.
  • I guess I can wait until they're all out.
  • We're supposed to go see it as a team fun day at work on Monday, but from what I've read about it I'm thinking I'll be the dick that decides to stay at the office and work instead.
  • I should be going to sleep instead of writing this, but I really liked it. Not everyone agreed with me, but for me and at least a few of my friends, the 48fps was largely positive; maybe a few less rapidly-sweeping camera shots would be good, but it absolutely sold me on the giants scene. I guess some people are also grumpy about how long it is for how little of the book it covers, but I like Lord of the Rings for its ponderousness, so the pacing was right up my alley. And Martin Freeman is basically perfect as Bilbo.
  • Saw it this afternoon. Not bad, but clearly milking the material for all that it's worth. Had a lot of filler in it that I could have taken or left. Still don't see how they're going to stretch this all the way into a trilogy, unless the Battle of the Five Armies is two hours long.
  • edited December 2012
    I'm sure the White Council/Dol Goldur situation will provide a lot of material to help fill out (or stretch out) the next two movies.
  • That Green Dragon Pub article reminds me that I've been here.

    It's alright.
  • Just got back from the hobbit and was very pleased. Its long and definitely squeezing all it can out of the book. But in the end that's sort of what I want. Everytime I watch lotr I'm always hungry for more and more is exactly what the hobbit is

    And really the more mundane adventures the better. All the big battles and court drama are fine, but give me more level 1 encounters with troll chefs and +1 elf swords with history's. I swear I could hear the dice rolling in that scene.
  • I just wanna note that you guys once cried about harry potter getting two movies. Well ya got three now.
  • How I've changed: saw LotR at midnight screenings in a cool theater in WV; probably won't ever watch the Hobbit.
  • It's ten years later. Priorities change. As it stands, I'll probably see the remaining two films, but I'm not exactly excited about them, and I'll probably hit the theater during a matinee hour when the price is more in line with my current finances.
  • Yeah, so far everyone's saying "it's More Of The Rings". Which isn't a bad thing per se, but it does take away the excitement.
  • It's more of the Rings to me just means that it will be more of me falling asleep in the theatre.
  • I want to go but i can't subject Jenn to it with a clear conscience, and I'm not going alone, so I'll wait till the DVD comes out.
  • I didn't fall asleep until the last 15 minutes! A new record!

    Of course, I ate approximately a pound of candy during the movie, so that may have helped.
  • The more I think about it, the more the stuff with Radagast, the White Council, and Azog the Despoiler feels like a distraction. I get that the former was added to tie the movie more strongly to the LoTR movies and the latter was to give Thorin more of a character arc in this film, but still...
  • Distraction from what? I mean the pacing was all over the place but the white council stuff is important and despite the weirdness in this one its still some of what im really looking forward to. What I thought was a distraction were the million action sequences consisting mostly of - omg were falling and gonna dieeeeeeee. There was wayyy too much of that and not enough character development and interaction. Re: white council weirdness - i think they treated Saruman a little too flippantly. I liked that they presented him as an overbearing and pompous old pedant but a little more white council stuff with a little more substance would have gone a long way for me. Also wheres everyone else? The scene was so weirdly shot, just four of them with the wizards seated and galadriel wandering around like a spaz. I mean christopher lee is really old and probably had to be seated but the solution they came up with was clumsy. I get that galadriel is supposed to be all floaty and etherial, that works on the page but if you just have her slow-walking around a platform and looking into the distance its just silly, not other-worldly.

    Changing gears - the fact that Gandalf was like there are 2 blue know what I forgot their names lol, got a fanservice gold star from me.
  • Holy shit Christopher Lee is crazy old. I had no idea he was 90.
  • A distraction from the story of Bilbo's journey. And yeah, that scene is a classic example of show, don't tell. Four people sitting around talking about a dagger is not the most visually exciting stuff.
  • edited December 2012
    The movie would have been immensely improved if the whole pale-orc subplot had been removed. That stuff just felt like an excuse to add more action scenes. The film was on its A-Game when it felt like a dark fairy tale, like in the Goblin King and Gollum scenes, which is where the film should have climaxed.
  • The blue wizards line got a laugh out of me.

    Also, the first time the movie went into the goblin caves, I muttered "fucking Blighttown" under my breath.
  • That's what Graz whispered to me in the theater. :D
  • I also made the Blighttown comparison, but it was when the dwarves were fleeing.

    Completely agree with IAmZim about the Pale Orc thing. Plus this was the first time in all of Jackson's Tolkien adaptations that the violence struck me as needlessly gruesome. I think it was all the decapitation and disembowelment-related stuff. It got to me a bit.
  • I'd say my biggest complaints are that the Radagast stuff was waaaay too cartoony, Azog was an unnecessary addition, they treated Saruman too lightly, and there was barely any practical effects here; the original trilogy's blending of every practical effect in the book with the CGI was one of the things I liked most about it. Otherwise, I really enjoyed myself; it's been years since I read The Hobbit but I still got a grin on my face when they quoted directly from the book, and the Council of the Wise scene and other assorted fanservice really did it for me. The blue wizards thing was also my favorite line of the movie. I do think this one swings noticeably more between "accessible crowd pleasing blockbuster" and "faithful, fanservice giving adpatation" mode than the LOTR movies did and is worse off for it, but it was still a fun time. I'll have to see it again when I'm not stuck in literally the worst seats in the house with two assholes who won't shut the fuck up sitting behind me.
  • edited December 2012
    Watched the Hobbit last night I enjoyed the film for the most part. I felt a few scenes could have been cut out. Like the council meeting for example. Radagast was goofy but I didn't mind him. Also Martin Freeman did great playing Bilbo.






  • edited December 2012
    The white council stuff was poorly handled but i would have liked to see it done well not cut. But i know some people are like wah i want my charming whimsical hobbit story and that is ALL i want. But i personally am not any more interested in the charming whimsical hobbit story than i am in the rest of it. I think they should have named the movies The Hobbit AND OTHER STORIES OF THE THIRD AGE OF ARDA SHUT UP. That would have made things up front. And if that larger context is what everyone is calling lotr fanservice then i object. Lotr and the appendices are the main source text, the hobbit is a small piece torn out of the larger text (and dumbed down a bit for kids).
    Also Paul, youre maybe pushing the usefulness of the -show dont tell- adage when you use it to criticize the depiction of a meetingwhere a bunch of people talk about stuff.
    (Please excuse typos my phone is an asshole)
  • edited December 2012
    Lotr and the appendices are the main source text, the hobbit is a small piece torn out of the larger text (and dumbed down a bit for kids).
    I'm pretty sure its this thinking on the part of the director that lead to me not enjoying this movie.

    Considering the Hobbit came before LOTR its hardly 'dumbed down' for kids. Its an effective piece of fantasy made for kids, and its strengths are separate from LOTR. Jackson should have tried to capture the feeling of a dark fairy tale, rather than a retconned prequel to his LOTR Trilogy.
  • edited December 2012
    My point, Graz, is that they spent a bunch of time talking about the Morghul blade. But it's nearly a decade since the earlier films. This movie is going to pull in a new audience, including people who haven't seen the LoTR movies, and so they won't have any reaction at all when the blade is revealed. It was the perfect opportunity to include another flashback, maybe some dynamic action involving the fall of Angmar. Instead, it's just four people hanging around a table, talking. Missed opportunity, even with the exposition dump explaining the significance of the dagger. They could easily have kept the voice-over and showed some visually interesting stuff, like they did when they explained how the ring betrayed Isildur and came to Bilbo.
  • "When I published The Hobbit - hurriedly and without due consideration - I was still influenced by the convention that 'fairy-stories' are naturally directed to children...but the desire to address children, as such, had nothing to do with the story as such in itself or in the urge to write it. But it had some unfortunate effects on the mode of expression and narrative method...Intelligent children of good taste (of which there seem quite a number) have always, I am glad to say, singled out the points in manner where the address is to children as blemishes."

    "The so-called 'children's story' [The Hobbit] was a fragment, torn out of an already existing mythology. In so far as it was dressed up as 'for children' in style or manner, I regret it. So do the children."

    I agree that this movie didnt wholly work but I dont think making it more hobbit-ey and less lotr-ey is the answer at all. And the assumption that the former is somehow 'legitimate' and the latter is somehow fan service bullshit is what is irks me in the discussion surrounding the movie. Again, I get why people who love The Hobbit for what it is are disappointed in this movie, I am just disappointed for different reasons. I am a dick about this. But im pretty much just a dick about this and pizza, so.

    Paul - yeah the reveal of the blade was way overdone, and mostly without impact if you dont already know who the witch-king is, but i think the white council talkey parts could have sustained themselves had they been done better. Theres crazy shit going on, the most powerful people in the world are disagreeing on a really important issue of confronting or ignoring evil, an evil that will eventually bring the world to the brink of destruction. Its high stakes enough without having to resort to a crammed in flash back involving yet another action sequence. I guess if they hadnt cut Glorfindel from the council (again, poor Glorfindel) there could have been someone there to talk about the battles against Angmar
  • Graz, you only feel that it's high stakes because of your encyclopedic knowledge of all things Tolkien. For anyone else, myself included, it was four people sitting around a table arguing about a knife. If Jackson was trying to convey the enormity of the situation, especially to a casual fan or a newcomer, then he failed.
  • edited December 2012
    I completely agree with you on that, my whole point about the white council is that its a badly botched opportunity, and exactly, he failed to convey the import of the events discussed and of the meeting itself. Its a big deal, theres only been one other white council and that was thousands of years ago. Calling another meeting should have been presented as an extremely rare and grave event, instead it was basically a few people chilling around the kitchen table and ignoring grandpa while he rambles. Bleh.
  • edited December 2012
    A few months back I promised a friend of mine that I'd take her to see the Hobbit and that we'd go for dinner and clothes shopping and all that junk that we do afterwards. Tomorrow is the day I finally have to pay up. Considering I despise Fantasy in general, I am steeling myself for what is to come. Kidding mostly, it'll be a fun time but I'm probably going to hate this movie like I did the other LOTR movies.

    Is the Hobbit really going to be 3 goddamn movies long? I mean, I can understand Lord of the Rings because its a book a movie, but isn't the Hobbit just one book?
  • edited December 2012
    Don't forget that they're also trying to set up stuff for the Peter Jackson LOTR movies. Remember how the "Morgul Blade" in Fellowship just kinda shows up? And not only is it never mentioned before or after that shot, but it quite literally disappears on screen. I can understand why they might want to take this opportunity to familiarize the theoretical "viewer who hasn't already seen the earlier films" with that thing, so that when it turns up "later" it's like "oh yeah, I know what that is, wow this is bad news!" (As opposed to my dad, who, when we saw that bit, leaned over and asked me what the hell a Mongrel Blade was.)

    The lurching tone might be the result of Jackson and screenwriters trying to avoid the whole "but you chaaaaaaaanged it" criticism they kept getting during LotR. When you decide that you aren't going to rewrite source material to make it fit your story, then you're basically just picking up another writer's screenplay. And it's really hard to make that work.
  • You all keep talking about the pacing and length and i can't help but think of King Kong. He remade a movie and made it longer and slower for no damn reason. He added unnecessary action sequences. I think what we're seeing is a Jackson with no filter. It's in some way the next George Lucas.
  • Whooooa, let's not say things we can't take back, that's a tad harsh.
  • King Kong, The Lovely Bones and The Hobbit; I'm willing to say he's made as many bad films than George Lucas.
  • I liked it. I'll elaborate more later but hearing it compared to King Kong makes me sad.
  • I definitely wouldn't call it a bad movie. Its slow paced and some of the writing is a bit wobbly at times, but not bad. Definitely not even in the same stratosphere as Episode 1.

    Honestly, I don't even mind the slow pacing and unnecessary action sequences. I don't really need for my movie about hiking dwarfs and sweet wizards to be time efficient to be enjoyable. Middle earth is a cool place and I like being there and watchin dudes do stuff.

    I'm not even a lotr fan specifically (and maybe that's the problem?), but I like fantasy and The Hobbit is a good fantasy movie. I will grant its certainly a little behind its predecessors but miles a head of most of what's out there in its genre.
Sign In or Register to comment.