The Hobbit

[Jimmy3Putt]

I'd be a lot more interested in this if it was made before LOTR.

This is an HBO movie for me.

 

[Buster Bluth]

I'd be a lot more interested in this if it was made before LOTR.

This is an HBO movie for me.

Care to elaborate? I'm not following the logic.

 

[Buster Bluth]

The reviews from the places and people I trust have said that the movie runs too long and that they fear splitting the book into three parts could doom the trilogy, but that it is exciting and that "visually it's the best film ever made," and "makes Avatar looks like it was made on a Macbook." The second one is more than likely hyperbole.

I assume that geeks will love it, Tolkien fans will have hard-ons the entire time, and everyone else will consider it above average.

EDIT: it has a 66% from Rotten Tomatoes' critics . Uh oh. (81% from people though)

 

[gkIrish]

The reviews from the places and people I trust have said that the movie runs too long and that they fear splitting the book into three parts could doom the trilogy, but that it is exciting and that "visually it's the best film ever made," and "makes Avatar looks like it was made on a Macbook." The second one is more than likely hyperbole.

I assume that geeks will love it, Tolkien fans will have hard-ons the entire time, and everyone else will consider it above average.

EDIT: it has a 66% from Rotten Tomatoes' critics . Uh oh. (81% from people though)

The bold is absolutely true. I would just go see it for that reason. It's like watching Blu-Ray on a nice 1080p LCD for the first time but much more intense. IDK if it blows Avatar out of the water but it's clearly better looking.

I too fear that a trilogy is too much. They could definitely do it in two movies.

 

[blueNDgold44]

I just saw it and thought it was awesome! The first 45 minutes-1 hour dragged on but as soon as the action picked up it was an awesome movie

 

[Jimmy3Putt]

Care to elaborate? I'm not following the logic.

Don't I already "know" the story even if I haven't read the book?

-Bilbo gets summoned on a quest.
-He gets a sword that glows when orcs are around.
-He tricks a couple trolls that were going to eat him into staying out in the sun.
-He meets Gollum and steals the ring.
-Wasn't there a dragon at the end?
-He writes his book and lives a long time until he gives Frodo the ring.

I got all of this from LOTR.

To me it's like trying to watch the Star Wars prequels.
Can't justify spending all the money and sitting in a crowed theater for that.
I'll wait for cable, although I might rent the 3D version after watching that video you posted.

 

[IrishEyesAreSmiling]

Just saw it fantastic not as good as LOTR but still damn good

 

[Bishop2b5]

Galadriel was supposed to be a smoking hot Elf Queen and Pete Jackson casts Cate Blanchett...wtf?

That casting decision puzzled me too. Good actress, but hardly the unbearably beautiful Galadriel the books describe. Charize Theron would've been a good choice. Put Adriana Lima in a blonde wig. Who cares if she can act or not. LOL

 

[mgriff]

Cate Blanchett has a classic beauty that fits any era, which is why I think he cast her. Tolkien was certainly not thinking of a "modern" woman with her large tits, huge make-up requirement, and revealing clothing. I think he meant classical beauty, which I believe Cate fills. She's beautiful in any era. She may not be the siren of modern times according to many, but she's beautiful. I appreciate him for sticking to his and not going with some glitzy whore.

 

[Irish Insanity]

haha That's like walking into a conversation about fine champagnes with "Looky here I done got me a pack of Natural Ice!"

That GIF looks like someone backstage of Maury getting ready to hear the results of a test.

And I'm closer to the Naty Ice than I am the fine wine in that discussion too.

 

[pkt77242]

I first read the Hobbit in 2nd grade. It was the first real novel I ever read, and had a huge impact on me.



I had an issue with that, too. She pulls off Galadriel's demeanor well, but her bulbous nose just doesn't belong on an Elven face.



Tolkein wrote a lot of backstory for LotR that wasn't in the Hobbit-- the Necromancer moving into Mirkwood, Gandalf's travels, etc. He's pulling all of that stuff into the trilogy; not just the content of the Hobbit.

I was thinking that Keira Knightley would be a good pick for that role.

 

[NDinTEXAS]

I was pissed half way through the film when I found out there wasn't going to be enough time for it to finish and this was going to be another trilogy. Its good but not as good as lotr.

 

[mgriff]

I'm going to see it in 50 mins. I wanted the IMAX 3D HFR but it was sold out, so I'm going with the 3D HFR at 1930. I'm soooooo excited.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Cate Blanchett has a classic beauty that fits any era, which is why I think he cast her. Tolkien was certainly not thinking of a "modern" woman with her large tits, huge make-up requirement, and revealing clothing. I think he meant classical beauty, which I believe Cate fills. She's beautiful in any era. She may not be the siren of modern times according to many, but she's beautiful. I appreciate him for sticking to his and not going with some glitzy whore.

In case this was referring to my post as well, my issue isn't Blanchett's "hotness". It's that her features (particularly her nose) aren't elvish as Tolkein described them.

I was thinking that Keira Knightley would be a good pick for that role.

She's definitely got the facial features for it, but she's probably too young to play an ancient Elf queen. She'd also struggle to match Blanchett's gravitas.

 

[greyhammer90]

good luck in the hfr. Let us know how it looks, I've heard it makes landscapes look amazing but some sets look plasticy as a result of the "really really real" 48 fps look.

 

[woolybug25]

Who has seen the new Hobbit movie???

 

[Buster Bluth]

good luck in the hfr. Let us know how it looks, I've heard it makes landscapes look amazing but some sets look plasticy as a result of the "really really real" 48 fps look.

A few times a year the owners of the cinemas get to see a 10-15min clip of all of the upcoming movies to see if they want to put it in their theater. Obviously, everyone will be having The Hobbit, but they get to see it anyway as a business perk.

Shockingly, the consensus in the spring (when I read it) was that the 5k resolution and the 48fps made the film look so real that it looked like "an English soap opera," i.e. you could tell everything was fake.

A lot of people were worried. I assumed they got it all fixed, but I guess I'll see next weekend.

 

[Buster Bluth]

In case this was referring to my post as well, my issue isn't Blanchett's "hotness". It's that her features (particularly her nose) aren't elvish as Tolkein described them.



She's definitely got the facial features for it, but she's probably too young to play an ancient Elf queen. She'd also struggle to match Blanchett's gravitas.

Who would you have picked?

What about Halle Berry??

 

[IrishinTN]

Saw it with the family tonight and thought it was great. 3 hrs of previews and movie and not once did my 7 yr old tell me he was bored or wanted to leave. That, my friends, is a good movie.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Who would you have picked?

Jane Seymour, Diane Lane, or Mary Louise Parker.

 

[mgriff]

Ok I've got a verdict on the HFR 3D. This is one man's opinion so your mileage may differ.

I thought it was stunning for the stills and scenery. You actually feel like you are there because it is so realistic. It is almost like you are watching it on a set for certain scenes. The action was good but I think it made them blurry, or to hard to tell exactly what was going on.

I would like to see it regularly before I give my verdict but it feels like you're there is so crisp for the most part. Sometimes you get a set feel but not much, and the action sequences can be choppy because of the added frames. I'm not very well versed in cinematography so hopefully someone can weigh in with some more expertise.

In any event the movie was freaking awesome and if you're fan of the books you'll like the movie. I think Peter Jackson has done a tremendous job bringing these films to life. Great acting and I really get the feeling like I'm reading the books again when I hear some of the lines delivered. It was totally worth it.

 

[Buster Bluth]

Yeah, that'd have been awesome. Diane Lane is arguably the milfiest milf in milftown.

 

[johnnykillz]

Yeah, that'd have been awesome. Diane Lane is arguably the milfiest milf in milftown.

Yeah and it's not like she'd let some random dude take her in a restroom stall...

(Queue the Unfaithful scene.)

 

[Mr. Larson]

Cate Blanchett has a classic beauty that fits any era, which is why I think he cast her. Tolkien was certainly not thinking of a "modern" woman with her large tits, huge make-up requirement, and revealing clothing. I think he meant classical beauty, which I believe Cate fills. She's beautiful in any era. She may not be the siren of modern times according to many, but she's beautiful. I appreciate him for sticking to his and not going with some glitzy whore.

This has been debated by several, but I'm feeling lazy and only quoting this one...

I wasn't suggesting Jackson go "Bond girl"/glitzy whore with his casting of Galadriel. This is just my opinion, but I don't find Cate Blanchett even remotely attractive. To me she's homely...fugly even.

Good suggestions for the role that I would agree with: Charlize Theron and Diane Lane. I think Gwyneth Paltrow also works.

While we're at it let's sub in Ashley Judd as Arwen.

 

[woolybug25]

I wasn't suggesting Jackson go "Bond girl"/glitzy whore with his casting of Galadriel. This is just my opinion, but I don't find Cate Blanchett even remotely attractive. To me she's homely...fugly even.

You must date some hot chicks. Pics or GTFO....

 

[mgriff]

https://www.google.com/search?q=cat...jniALj9YHADA&ved=0CAoQ_AUoAA&biw=1920&bih=937

Would totally throw her outta bed...

 

[koonja]

Jane Seymour, Diane Lane, or Mary Louise Parker.

I couldn't take Jane seriously after her whore-role in Wedding Crashers. Diane Lane would have been a good choice, imo.

 

[IrishLion]

You read "The Simarillion."

This guy!

It was my favorite of all of them. So in-depth, such a tremendous history of the "mythical" and so awesome to imagine the darkness of Melkor, Ungoliant, etc... (nerdgasm).

As for The Hobbit, I thought Jackson did a tremendous job of incorporating some of the "backstory" things that weren't actually in the book, like the Necromancer fortress and Radagast (I don't think Radagast was in the book, but it's also been a long time since I read it).

I also thought he did a good job of incorporating the "story telling" element of The Hobbit, which isn't as crucial in the 3 LOTR films. With the dwarves telling stories and the songs, it felt like I was being told a story, not watching an epic film. And this was a good thing to me.

I was worried when I heard it was a new trilogy, but if the next two do as well as the first one at incorporating the back stories of Middle Earth, they will be tremendous. I was worried the first film would be boring... I was sorely mistaken and forgot about the action in the first 7-8 chapters.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Presented without comment:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/AGF5ROpjRAU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>