Love the guys suiting up for Formal Friday. Good to see Queenstown again. I once had a lot of fun jumping off mountains there.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I can't wait for the first movie. Everytime I see the trailer I get goosebumps.
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
Cant wait for the movie.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
The Hobbit (1977) Soundtrack (OST) - 13. Misty Mountains Cold
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
I'm curious to see how the higher frame rate will be received. I feel like if any movie is going to pull it off and usher us in to a new age of hyper-realism, I want it to be The Hobbit.
Unfortunately I likely won't see it the day it comes out .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Only a tiny fraction of theaters, from what I understand, are capable of playing the higher rate.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Only a tiny fraction of theaters, from what I understand, are capable of playing the higher rate.
This. The majority of theaters in which the film will be screened will be showing it in the traditional 24 fps. Based on early reviews, this is likely a good thing. Early criticism suggests the visual effects (both practical and CGI) don't hold up well under the scrutiny of a higher frame rate.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Hm. Well, the one nearest me is showing in HFR 3d and regular... so I'll just have to go see both.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dr Strangelove: Hm. Well, the one nearest me is showing in HFR 3d and regular... so I'll just have to go see both.
Let us know how it compares if you do. I'd be curious what an average viewer thinks as opposed to a professional critic.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
And what makes you think I'm not a professional critic .
I'll be sure to post a small review, though like I said it'll be after the weekend before I get to see it. While the midnight showing is enticing, having a four hour drive early the next morning makes it considerably less so.
Posted by Marlozhan (Member # 2422) on :
I am not terribly excited about The Hobbit movie, and I was one of those people that dressed up in a costume for the Return of the King premiere.
None of the trailers have impressed me, and the early reviews (which usually tend to err on the side of being too positive) are pretty much confirming what I already felt from the trailer: that the movie is bloated and too focused on effects and frivolous mishaps.
Somehow I think the Hobbit movie would have been better if it came out before The Lord of the Rings movies. After that trilogy, I think I just feel underwhelmed with the Hobbit. Not to mention, a relatively short story is being broken down into 3 movies, the first of which is 2 hrs and 45 mins.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was really excited about the Hobbit, as it is a WAY more cohesive story then LotRs, and when I heard they were talking about splitting it into more then one movie, I was hesitant, and they it turned into 3 movies and I am downright disinterested.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I don't think it should have been 3 movies, but I will note that the average novel (200+ pages) is way too long to be a movie.
"Of Mice and Men" was about 100 pages, I think, and it's the only film adaptation of a book I've seen that didn't have to skip over lots of important points.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
(If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I hope this works as well for HBO's adapatation of the Neil Gaiman novel American Gods.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: "Of Mice and Men" was about 100 pages, I think, and it's the only film adaptation of a book I've seen that didn't have to skip over lots of important points.
Princesses Bride, best adaptation I've ever seen.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Colbert seems to enjoy it.
Posted by Miro (Member # 1178) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I hope this works as well for HBO's adapatation of the Neil Gaiman novel American Gods.
I just finished rereading American Gods. It's a very visual book, but I have a hard time seeing it work well on a screen.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I'm open to the argument that the HBO Game of Thrones show is good on its own terms.
But it's not a very faithful adaptation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I'm open to the argument that the HBO Game of Thrones show is good on its own terms.
But it's not a very faithful adaptation.
Indeed.
I've long felt a mini-series would be the only way to handle the Silmarillion, but I just can't fathom it actually working. The only way a movie would work is to try and pull out the Lays as separate stories.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
Nifty little web app to compare frame rates to get a feel for newer 48fps.
48fps limited availability: At a theater near you?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Anthonie: Nifty little web app to compare frame rates to get a feel for newer 48fps.
Some of those locations seem pretty random, like they should have been further back in the pack for receiving upgrades.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I'm open to the argument that the HBO Game of Thrones show is good on its own terms.
But it's not a very faithful adaptation.
I don't know about that. I think it's more faithful than the Lord or the Rings/Hobbit films.
Besides, G.R.R.M. fully supports the show. He even writes an episode each season for it. Seems like if the author thinks it's a good adaptation of his work, it probably is.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Malarky.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Just got back from the midnight movie. Not bad, not bad at all.
I have a number of minor problems with it, but by and large they seem to have gone out of their way to include every possible snippet line and detail of the book. They stopped right about where I thought they would.
I was even impressed by some of the secondary characters they put in the spotlight, though, perhaps TOO much in some cases.
Longer review to follow tomorrow.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: (If it weren't for the economic incentives working against it, I'd generally be in favor of books being made into TV series rather than movies. See Game of Thrones for a pretty good example of how to handle big books correctly)
I'm open to the argument that the HBO Game of Thrones show is good on its own terms.
But it's not a very faithful adaptation.
I don't know about that. I think it's more faithful than the Lord or the Rings/Hobbit films.
Besides, G.R.R.M. fully supports the show. He even writes an episode each season for it. Seems like if the author thinks it's a good adaptation of his work, it probably is.
I think it could just as easily mean that he is glad it's been made with any semblance of faith to his stories at all. They do a good job capturing the spirit of the show, for the most part.
GRRM did a lot of TV writing before he wrote the novels. He may be more amenable to the butchery that's occurred for that reason. He probably sees it as a good show, and agrees with the massive changes they've made.
Or, maybe he doesn't. I don't know.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Just got back from the midnight movie. Not bad, not bad at all.
I have a number of minor problems with it, but by and large they seem to have gone out of their way to include every possible snippet line and detail of the book. They stopped right about where I thought they would.
I was even impressed by some of the secondary characters they put in the spotlight, though, perhaps TOO much in some cases.
Longer review to follow tomorrow.
Cool. Wish I had it in me to do a midnight showing on a work night.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
REVIEW: With spoilers...although you all know what happens, so it's not so much spoilers, really, but fair warning!
I have three big criticisms, and a flurry of good things to say.
1. It was a little much. Jackson managed to stuff just about every word, character, concept and event into the story. The problem with doing is was a bit like a writer who has all these great ideas, but they don't fit, and clutter up the story, yet he refuses to edit any of them out. The result was a sometimes disjointed narrative. I felt like we were being carted from random scene to random scene, more like a play than a movie, but the dots weren't totally connected. It left some of the magic out of the movie that was in the others. It's just not quite the same.
A lot of the actions scenes were just wildly overwrought. They actually needed to tone some of it down quite a bit.
2. Unnecessary changes. This one is a mixed blessing. I love the fact that they decided to make the orcs into major characters, and that they even showed the Battle of Azanulbizar, but they changed the details for seemingly no reason. They changed the circumstances of Thror's death, gave credit for killing Azog to Thorin instead of Dain, and then magically brought Azog back to life when he was supposed to have died. Why not just do it like in the book, kill Azog, and bring up Bolg like they're supposed to? And why is there a Bolg credited in the movie but not actually a real character? Are they going to kill Azog in the next movie and THEN bring up Bolg? I don't like the changes, I find them unnecessary.
3. Orcrist doesn't glow. It's always bothered me that Glamdring didn't either, but it should. They make a big deal in the book about laying Thorin to rest with Orcrist so the mountain could never be attacked unaware. But no glow, only Sting gets that, still.
4. I guess we'll wait to see what happens in the next movie, but, why add in everything that was added, but leave the Eagles out as characters? That's some pretty stupid storytelling given their role later on. Why not cover the fact that Gwaihir and the others have no more love for orcs, and establish them as characters, rather than continuing to make them nameless, faceless deus ex machinas? It's become a running joke.
5. The White Council stuff really wasn't so bad. They put most of the burden on Radagast, and it sort of worked. But for one or two major scenes, they kept it fairly tamped down, and I thought it was handled well enough. They had to compress the timeline, which I'm fine with. Most of what happens on this movie actually happened years before in the books, but for the sake of storytelling that doesn't bother me.
In general, I thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation. I very much appreciated how they wove the Dwarf songs into the movie. I never thought they'd be able to fit "That's what Bilbo Baggins Hates" into the movie, so that was a pleasant surprise! I wish they could have done the full song about Smaug. And I wish someone else had done the narration of Smaug attacking Lonely Mountain. I think it would have sounded much better from Galadriel rather than Ian Holm. His version was a little understated. But I liked that they played up Thrain's greed, even though they left out the role of the Dwarf Ring, which I thought was a minor oversight.
I think Thorin isn't quite as much of a douche as he's supposed to be. They're making him into more of a hero than I would have expected, but that's fine I suppose.
Other than that there's not much to say. It was good, it wasn't overlong as many said, though maybe 20 min less might have served it better. There did seem to be a missing X Factor that I can't put my finger on, but it was good.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
quote: Patrick Rothfuss: No. I really don't have any desire to watch the new Hobbit.
Yes. I'm serious. If I wanted to watch a third of a movie with too much CGI that takes a steamy crap on my childhood memories, I'd just go watch Episode One again. Alternately, I could shut my dick in a car door. It's a horse apiece, really.
Yes, I know I'm *supposed* to want to watch it. That's what fifty million dollars in marketing money is for. It's supposed to make you want all sorts of things. Nevertheless. I still do not want to drink Bud Light, listen to Justin Bieber, or drive a Toyota Highlander. Neither do I want to watch the new Hobbit.
Yes. I'm well-aware I'm being a curmudgeon. I am one hundred percent ****ing curmudgeon. I am also a Luddite, a contrarian, and an iconoclast.
Now get off my lawn and take your Goddamn hoverboards with you.
A seemingly unsolicited post on Facebook from Patrick Rothfuss.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I knew I didn't like that guy.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Was it the bit about the Toyota Highlander?
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Heh.
It was the rant against marketing, and calling himself a Luddite. Mostly the latter. Luddites are pretty despicable, in my opinion.
I don't mind him not wanting to see the Hobbit. That's sort of irrelevant.
Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
I think that was just him casting that particular stone before someone else did.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I just saw The Hobbit Friday, in HFR 3D. It was the first-of-the-day, matinee showing, so I only had to pay $7.00. (That was the MJR Cinema 20 on Van Dyke, in Sterling Heights, Mich. for those who live in this area.) That included the cost of the 3D glasses (the good, polarized type), which we got to keep.
HFR stands for High Frame Rate. This is something new, that Peter Jackson is one of the first to use commericially. He shot the movie at 48 frames per second, double the visual information density of the standard 24 frames per second. (This also requires that the projector be able to show the movies at 48 frames per second.) I have read that this improves the clarity and smoothness, especially when combined with 3D. I suppose it looked pretty good, though I probably could not tell that great a difference, unless somehow I could see the two different frame rates side by side.
Jackson is a good story teller, and he had the same excellent writing team that he had for the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It still seems a little anticlimactic (or preclimactic, I guess, since it is a prequel).
Elijah Wood was back to reprise his role as Frodo, in the opening part of the movie, where Bilbo tells him he has written down a detailed account of his adventure 60 years previous. The original Bilbo (played by Ian Holm) is back for the opening scene, too. This is how Jackson ties the two epic works together. They have a new actor (Martin Freeman) to play the young Bilbo. He does look a little like he could be a youthful Bilbo. Good casting. They also have Ian McKellen reprising (or should that be pre-prising since the movie is a prequel) his role as Gandalf. Cate Blanchett is back to reprise her role of Galadriel, Orlando Bloom reprises his role as Legolas, and Hugo Weaving is back to reprise his role as Elrond (even though the movie is supposedly set 60 years before the Ring trilogy, conveniently elves do not age), Christopher Lee is back to reprise his role as Saruman. Andy Serkis is back to reprise his role as Gollum.
We meet a new wizard, some zany guy named Radagast the Brown (played by Sylvester McCoy). He has a great love for animals. The sinister evil presence hinted at in this movie is a human "Necromancer," someone who does something with the dead (a little unclear at this point), and is despoiling nature, much to Radagast's horror.
Hobbiton really looks great, much expanded in the scenic shots that take advantage of the new HFR protocol. And wait until you see the expanded Rivendell!
Good CGI too. When the eagles swoop in to save the day, you can see their individual feathers fluttering.
The theater I was in was only about two-thirds full, so the seating was comfortable, especially in the amphitheater type seating in the number one auditorium. Schools are not out yet for Christmas break, or probably the theater might have been more crowded. (Actually, it seemed to me that the audience was comprised mainly of us Boomers, for whom the Tolkien novels were "our" special "in" literature when we were going to college.)
I hope the movie does well. This was only "Part 1." I heard that Jackson wants to do a trilogy of Tolkien's novel, The Hobbit. In this part, Bilbo obtains the sword "Sting," and the One Ring, and meets Gollum. There are violent confrontations with the Trolls, the Orcs, and the Orcs again. He and the dwarf band visit Rivendell. The elves are not entirely happy or supportive of their quest to regain the dwarves' lost kingdom, that had long ago been taken over by Smaug the dragon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:(That was the MJR Cinema 20 on Van Dyke, in Sterling Heights, Mich. for those who live in this area.)
So basically you're talking to me
We actually almost went to that theater for the midnight show but ended up at the emagine in Royal Oak, which also has the HFR, but we didn't see it that way. I may go see it next week in HFR.
In fairness, Elves not aging isn't so much "convenient" as it is the underlying premise of one of the major philosophical facets of the whole thing.
I thought Cate Blanchett was underused. I would have liked to see her narrating, at the very least, the flashback sequences for little more oomph.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I liked the movie well enough that I will certainly purchase the DVD when it comes out. I hope Jackson puts out an extended version, like he did with his Ring trilogy.
As for Cate Blanchett, her character Galadriel is one of the few women in the Tolkien novels. I realize they are basically adventure novels, but I always thought it was strange that there were so few women. After Galadriel, Arwen, and Eowen, who else was there?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
He's already said that he will have an extended edition and it will have an extra half hour of footage at least.
You know the funny thing is that, while there aren't a ton of female characters in LOTR, there are a lot of them in the Silmarillion, and every one of them is a badass. If you limit it to Hobbit and LOTR you're cutting yourself off from the vast majority of characters, especially the women.
Either way, they should have done more with Galadriel.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's already said that he will have an extended edition and it will have an extra half hour of footage at least.
It baffles me he'd still have EVEN MORE extra material after expanding the book into three movies. I'm curious what he could possibly have not used which he wouldn't possibly want to use in the next two movies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He's already said that he will have an extended edition and it will have an extra half hour of footage at least.
It baffles me he'd still have EVEN MORE extra material after expanding the book into three movies. I'm curious what he could possibly have not used which he wouldn't possibly want to use in the next two movies.
A 20 minute monologue on the composition and baking instructions for lembas bread.
And the funny thing is, there's source material for it in Tolkien.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm expecting it to definitely be more background material like that. I'm thinking it'll likely be increased backstory. The Baggins family tree type of background maybe. Or more of the Dwarf history stuff.
On another note, I chuckled a bit when Gandalf mentioned the two blue wizards in passing.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I'd like to learn more about the origins of the wizards. They seem human, and yet they live as long as elves. Remember that line from The Two Towers, where Gandalf mutters, "300 ages of men I've lived, and now I have no time!"
I was surprised to learn in this new movie that Bilbo's mother was a Took, so he must have been a close relative of Peregrin (Pippin) Took.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Me and two others were the only people in the theater who got that joke.
You really have to be a Silmarillion reader to get a lot of what was going on there. I mean the stuff at the Battle of Azanulbizar, especially PJ's total rewriting of that battle's outcome, probably wouldn't have bothered 99% of movie goers because they dont know what's wrong with it.
But I did appreciate the wizards comment. It must have been bugging people since ROTK when Saurman mentioned the rods of the five wizards. I mean even in the Histories of Middle Earth you have to dig to find the names of the Blue Wizards.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I'd like to learn more about the origins of the wizards. They seem human, and yet they live as long as elves. Remember that line from ROTK, where Gandalf mutters, "300 ages of men I've lived, and now I have no time!"
Wizards (the Istari) are Maiar. Gandalf is the same sort of being as a Balrog, only they're manifested differently. At some point in the Second Age, the Valar chose a few Maiar to go to Middle Earth in the guise of Men to help fight the evil powers. Olorin, Gandalf, was the greatest of them.
The Blue Wizards went off into the East beyond Rhun and were never heard from again. Some say they went native in the dark places of Middle Earth.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I think the average viewer wouldn't have been bothered by any of the changes or additions, so that's something at least. Most people won't realize the differences.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well the average viewer would have noticed that the orcs weren't main characters in that way, but they probably wouldn't have noticed the difference between Azog and Bolg.
But I did and it bugged me. I also think giving Thorin all the credit was lame too. It took some oomph out, as did not mentioning Thrain's ring.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It does seem silly they changed some of the background stuff like that since it would have little effect on the story of The Hobbit in any tangible way.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks Lyrhawn. Obviously you've read more deeply into Tolkien lore than I have. And I corrected my reference: Gandalf speaks that line in The Two Towers, just as he rides off to bring back the Rohirim cavalry who had been banished.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Steve - Exactly. Why change it when it serves no purpose to the story? If anything, giving Bolg a vendetta against Dain makes a lot more sense for storytelling than having Azog still be around. It's a bizarre contrivance that does nothing for the story.
Ron - You have no idea. I'm a little obsessed with Tolkien, and know way more about Middle Earth than is healthy or reasonable.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Steve - Exactly. Why change it when it serves no purpose to the story? If anything, giving Bolg a vendetta against Dain makes a lot more sense for storytelling than having Azog still be around. It's a bizarre contrivance that does nothing for the story.
I guess they needed someway to up the stakes in the first movie. Having the Azog character pursue Thorin (as a result of their fabricated "grudge") gives the first film a more self-contained conflict in a way.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
But why not make it Bolg and at least say that Thorin killed Azog? That's better revenge than the arm being cut off.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: But why not make it Bolg and at least say that Thorin killed Azog? That's better revenge than the arm being cut off.
I don't know, man. I have no explanation for it.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
Lyrhawn, can you direct me to Tolkien's writings on how to make and cook lembas? Google is only showing me different people's recipes, not the original source material.
Posted by ak (Member # 90) on :
And I'm a Tolkien maniac too, though slightly less so than you, I think. I've read The Hobbit and the trilogy probably a dozen times each, and the Silmarillion twice, Tolkien's letters once, and his other stories about once each. I got a book once on the languages, and tried to learn Quenya and Sindarin, and the runes and letters for a while.
But the 12 volume history of middle earth I've only dipped into here and there. It sort of upset me, for some odd reason. Some of the early drafts were so bad they seemed like fanfic or something, and that took away from the majesty and wholeness of the finished product, for me. So I realized I'd hit my limit of desire to know about middle earth there. It was encouraging that something that started out so mediocre could end up so good in the end. It made me feel that I could perhaps be a writer too. But the canon has become sacred scripture to me in many ways, and I didn't want it disturbed in my mind by earlier takes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think the point of giving more of the credit to Thorin is that much of the heroics in Tolkien's works tends to be subtle so they embellish it to make a point for today's audience. Additionally by making Thorin a little nicer to Bilbo to make the end more tragic.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by ak: Lyrhawn, can you direct me to Tolkien's writings on how to make and cook lembas? Google is only showing me different people's recipes, not the original source material.
It's in the Histories. I can't remember exactly which volume off the top of my head, but I know it's toward the end, something like Vol. 10-12. But it's a brief blurb titled something like "On Lembas Bread."
I've only read the Histories once. The first few are interesting as background notes for the actual writing of LOTR. It's the last three or four that have all the fun hidden stuff, like the first chapter or two of the unfinished sequel to LOTR about Eldarion, and some of the stuff that happened after LOTR.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Here's my guess:
They don't want to sustain Azog as a villain for the entire trilogy. As it is, he already has more scenes than both Smaug and the Necromancer combined. Like Lurtz in Fellowship of the Ring and Gothmog in Return of the King, these orc villains are there to drive the action forward, in parallel with the main Company.
Thus, Azog will die in the next film, and Bolg will avenge himself on Thorin in the Battle of the Five Armies, in the last film, who will in turn be killed by Bilbo, if we want to follow the father-son themes through to the end. Yes, that's not exactly how it happened in the book, but when has Peter Jackson ever let a little thing like canon get in the way of telling a "good" story.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
That may very well be what happens. And if it is...I guess I wouldn't hate it, except for Bilbo killing Bolg, that wound fundamentally change the spirit of the battle and Bilbo himself. I would throw an outright hissy fit.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
They're definitely going to make Bilbo an active element in the Battle of Five Armies. There's no way they'd keep the getting-knocked-out-and-waking-up-when-it's-over thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Out. Right. Hissy. Fit.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Some proposed candidates for Azog's death in descending order of likelihood:
Thorin (to continue the father-son themes and revenge cycle)
Beorn (because the orcs will be trespassing on his land)
Elves of Mirkwood (either Legolas or this new character Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, will have this honor)
Spiders of Mirkwood (because spiders are hungry)
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out. Right. Hissy. Fit.
I would prepare for it now then. Because there's no way they would allow the protagonist of their blockbuster fantasy adventure trilogy to be absent from the climactic battle scene.
In fact, prepare for Bilbo to single handedly slay a giant elephant. Wait. . .
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out. Right. Hissy. Fit.
I would prepare for it now then. Because there's no way they would allow the protagonist of their blockbuster fantasy adventure trilogy to be absent from the climactic battle scene.
In fact, prepare for Bilbo to single handedly slay a giant elephant. Wait. . .
I already have lengthy, angry diatribes in the early drafting stages.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Manji, if they were going to kill Azog before the battle of 5 armies and bring in another orc leader for that battle, I think they would have done so already, in the final scene of An Unexpected Journey.
I'm betting Bolg never shows up and it's Azog all the way through.
Doesn't bother me the way it does the more die-hard Tolkien fans, though. Besides, Azog is hands down the prettiest orc ever to grace the big screen, so, you know. Silver lining.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I'm trying to figure out what content they're going to include in which of the next two movies. It would be poor writing to make the 3rd movie JUST the Battle of Five Armies content. There's no way they could justify a 3 hour movie based on that.
But I say that after having watched a nearly 3 hour movie which only accounted for the first handful of chapters of the book.
I suppose anything is possible.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: Besides, Azog is hands down the prettiest orc ever to grace the big screen, so, you know. Silver lining.
The CGI for him actually really bothered me. I thought he was one of the most clearly fake elements in the movie.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: I'm trying to figure out what content they're going to include in which of the next two movies. It would be poor writing to make the 3rd movie JUST the Battle of Five Armies content. There's no way they could justify a 3 hour movie based on that.
But I say that after having watched a nearly 3 hour movie which only accounted for the first handful of chapters of the book.
I suppose anything is possible.
Chronologically, the assault on Dol Goldur and all that with the White Council happens while the dwarves are making their way up the mountain, so I would imagine the movie stops after one of the major events, like, Thorin's arrival in Laketown, or maybe just after Bard slays Smaug, and then the bulk of the movie is really just Beorn, Mirkwood spiders, Thranduil and Laketown, while the White Council assault makes up the other half. Then the last movie is the battle of five armies, dealing with the arkenstone, and the aftermath. That doesn't really feel like enough material for a full 3 hour movie at the tail end, but the only other thing I can think of is for them to cut things off earlier than Laketown, and maybe really, really play up the White Council stuff.
Or, they make the third movie half about connecting to LOTR, bring in Aragorn, more Gollum, and some of the intervening years.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I have the unpleasant feeling they'll further expand the Mirkwood spider scene. As little as that which is necessary would be fine for me. But it would be a good action set piece and an opportunity to show off the special effects again, so they'll likely add more of it if anything.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The special effects in the first one were cartoonishly over the top at many, many places. The more I think about it the more visually overwrought I think a great deal of it is. It's disappointing given how simplistic the story is, they really overcompensated.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I expect the overcompensation to continue. In spades.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Out. Right. Hissy. Fit.
I would prepare for it now then. Because there's no way they would allow the protagonist of their blockbuster fantasy adventure trilogy to be absent from the climactic battle scene.
Yeah, because Frodo played such a huge role at Helm's Deep and Pelennor Fields.
Let's please at least watch the movie before we start beating up on Jackson for changing the holy text.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Frodo wasn't in those scenes in the book, so that comparison is hardly relevant. Bilbo is present at the Battle of Five Armies. He just doesn't participate.
It would require a much more significant change in the text to make Frodo (who is on his own journey) make an appearance at those battles. It would be a relatively simple yet still aggravating change to make Bilbo participate in the battle in The Hobbit.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
That comparison is perfectly relevant, with regards to what you wrote:
quote:Because there's no way they would allow the protagonist of their blockbuster fantasy adventure trilogy to be absent from the climactic battle scene.
Nothing there about how "significant" a change would be necessary. Just a blanket statement that was proven wrong by a movie released nine years ago.
I probably shouldn't step too much further into this discussion, anyway, given that I prefer Jackson's LOTR over Tolkien's. Hell, I liked seeing the elves at Helm's Deep. So feel free to ignore me as a heathen non-purist and move on. Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Even if you choose to stubbornly take my original comment as literally as possible ( ), they didn't really allow the protagonist to be absent from those battles though regardless. In Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship is essentially the protagonist, and members of the Fellowship were most definitely present at those battles.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The special effects in the first one were cartoonishly over the top at many, many places. The more I think about it the more visually overwrought I think a great deal of it is. It's disappointing given how simplistic the story is, they really overcompensated.
In general I'm with Tarrsk about this stuff, but I agree with you about the overwrought nature of some of the CGI and FX. The escape from the Goblin caves is the most egregious, I think.
And I hated the way the goblin king died. Hate hate hate.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: Even if you choose to stubbornly take my original comment as literally as possible ( ), they didn't really allow the protagonist to be absent from those battles though regardless. In Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship is essentially the protagonist, and members of the Fellowship were most definitely present at those battles.
Eh, and Thorin and Gandalf at minimum are as much protagonists of this as Bilbo.
My prediction is Bilbo isn't knocked out for the whole fight, but neither will he rise up and be an amazing warrior either. I suspect he may even be knocked out at some point, just not for the entirety.
But killing Bolg/Azog/etc.? Being a super amazing warrior? Nah. They have the dwarves, Gandalf, Bard, etc. to do that.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The special effects in the first one were cartoonishly over the top at many, many places. The more I think about it the more visually overwrought I think a great deal of it is. It's disappointing given how simplistic the story is, they really overcompensated.
In general I'm with Tarrsk about this stuff, but I agree with you about the overwrought nature of some of the CGI and FX. The escape from the Goblin caves is the most egregious, I think.
And I hated the way the goblin king died. Hate hate hate.
Agreed. The entire escape was just so incredibly too much. I believed a lot of their escapes, but that they all managed to survive that? No thanks.
And yeah, his death was just bizarre...
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Did the Goblin King remind anyone else of "Where the Wild Things Are"?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Honestly all of that heavily reminded me of Del Toro's influence and I was happy.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Honestly all of that heavily reminded me of Del Toro's influence and I was happy.
I really mostly just saw del Toro's fingerprints in the stone giant sequence. That was very much in his style.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Honestly all of that heavily reminded me of Del Toro's influence and I was happy.
I really mostly just saw del Toro's fingerprints in the stone giant sequence. That was very much in his style.
The goblin messenger, and the way the goblins hoarded and passed the dwarves between them, along with a few more small touches like that screamed Del Toro to me.
I bought the escape from the goblins all the way to the falling wood planking at the end. Either the planking is made out of some incrediwood that wouldn't disintegrate under the friction and impacts, in which case all of them die from being crushed, or it's made out incredibly soft mattress wood, and shouldn't survive.
The moment with the stone giants felt similar. There are freaking mountains moving, and somehow in all that fighting nobody is injured.
Other than that, loved the whole damn thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
It was difficult to suspend disbelief that they survive some of what was happening. I mean I believe Elves can get out of most of those situations because they're quite literally superhuman. But dwarves don't really have those same attributes. They're fire resistant, but they're not crush proof.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Maybe in future movie installments Jackson will create more of a subplot focusing on the Necromancer. He was set up as something terribly sinister and evil, but then he seemed to have no more impact other than to upset the nature-lover, Radagast the Brown. According to Wickipedia, in the Ring Trilogy Sauron is said to have been the same person known as the Necromancer in The Hobbit. I didn't remember that part, but if it is true, then that would seem to give Jackson license to do something further with the Necromancer to reveal him as a buildup to Sauron. In the Ring Trilogy, Sauron still has not taken bodily form, but he exerts all kinds of influence, especially on those people who possessed a palantir (seing stone). The events of The Hobbit are said to take place about 60 years earlier. So Sauron should have a considerable influence already. Arguably, this is why the one ring "decided" to abandon Gollum and start to find its way back to its master. As was said in the narrative, it sensed "the evil rising in the east."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The timeline is being significantly compressed in The Hobbit movies that PJ is making. In reality, the Necromancer had set up shop in Dol Guldur some years before. It was in the Necromancer's dungeons long before the adventure east that Gandalf found the half mad Thrain and got from him the key and map of Erebor. He was the last of the Dwarf kings with a ring to be captured.
So when the adventure east gets going and Gandalf slips away after the Eagle rescue, they were already well aware of the Necromancer and the need to drive him out, but I don't think at that point they knew it was Sauron. I still think that came much later when he started secretly rebuilding Barad-dur and openly proclaimed himself.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Minor spoilers?:
One minor question I just realized. In the scene in which Gandalf and Galadriel discuss at length his plans, how does Galadriel disappear? Is this an ability detailed in the books somewhere?
END SPOILERS
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I think it's more like what Batman does. He's/she's just that ethereal.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
Then that bothers me in retrospect a little.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: Minor spoilers?:
One minor question I just realized. In the scene in which Gandalf and Galadriel discuss at length his plans, how does Galadriel disappear? Is this an ability detailed in the books somewhere?
END SPOILERS
I don't remember her disappearing. Is this in the scene where they're speaking alone outside the Council?
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
It is indeed. Gandalf turns around, and she's no longer there.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Hm...I just took it that she has that ability, like a super power, maybe because of her ring and the fact that she's super old and powerful.
But if not, then that's stupid. Giving characters insane and unexplainable abilities for no reason (other than for dramatic effect) is kind of dumb.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
She doesn't have the power of invisibility or transportation.
She does have a number of passive powers that keep Lothlorien alive. Being an ancient Noldorin Elf gives her some powers akin to the Bene Gesserit Voice, in a sense, and wielding Nenya gives her the power to sort of make things around her alive and powerful, the power to ensure and thrive against decay. It's why Lothlorien falls apart almost as soon as she goes across the water. It also gives her some outright sheer power, which is why Tolkien said none could destroy Lorien with her there, lest Sauron himself come, and why she was able to single handedly lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur.
I probably assumed that she didn't disappear, but rather she was doing that telepathy chat thing with Gandalf, and simply walked away during the conversation. So she's not magical. She's rude.
Posted by Aris Katsaris (Member # 4596) on :
Though, to play the devil's (Peter Jackson's) advocate, it wouldn't seem *that* far beyond canonical powers for Galadriel to project a image of herself from Lorien all the way to Rivendell - in which case the magic wouldn't be in her disappearance, but in her presence in the first place. :-)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I think we can safely say she was actually there, she was just especially ethereal.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I probably assumed that she didn't disappear, but rather she was doing that telepathy chat thing with Gandalf, and simply walked away during the conversation. So she's not magical. She's rude.
That's what I thought. Or that it was to enhance the effect of him closing his eyes, have him resting in her presence for longer than was shown on screen. I don't know.
I've seen it twice now and I really really enjoyed it. The Hobbit is one of the only two Tolkien books I've read, but to be honest I don't remember it all that well. The movie didn't feel padded to me at all, I definitely was in the mood for more, my girlfriend even more so. She yelled out a huge "WHAT?!" when it ended, because she didn't know it was going to be a trilogy.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
Enjoyed it for the most part. It's been years since I read the Hobbit, so the discrepancies Lyrhawn mentioned didn't bother as did many of the ones in LOTR. I didn't mind the addition in the beginning, to link the two movie sequences, nor the business with the white council. I like the difference in McKellan's performance in the movie, altogether more understated, more unsure , more gray. PJ did a pretty good job differentiating the dwarves too, even if I can't remember names to faces.
Favorite scene: The Dwarf chant/song at Bilbo's house. The inclusion of a fragment of this scene in the preview had enticed me the most.
Least favorite scene: every time we heard "Bilbo you are much more valuable than we thought/you seem." It's true that Gandalf states the point, but then Bilbo proves it throughout the book -- in fact, it's the major story arc of the novel, and it happens gradually. IIRC, The dwarves' respect for Bilbo is more gradual throughout the tale, and I can't remember a hug from Thorin Oakenshield at all. In the movie, the sentiment was overexpressed and underjustified, and altogether too treacly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
One thing I've always highly respected about PJ is that he keeps slipping Tolkien's music into the actual movie. It's actually a pretty incredibly thing, and I've always appreciated how artfully and deftly he does so.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
My first time seeing it, both the people I was with were terribly disappointed when the movie ended and I had to break the news to them that it was a 3-parter. *grin*
The "Misty Mountains"/dwarven theme song has created an ear-worm that won't die, so I've been back twice more now. Wait . . . it's not ringing in my head this a.m. Third time must be the charm.
The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She does have a number of passive powers that keep Lothlorien alive. Being an ancient Noldorin Elf gives her some powers akin to the Bene Gesserit Voice, in a sense, and wielding Nenya gives her the power to sort of make things around her alive and powerful, the power to ensure and thrive against decay. It's why Lothlorien falls apart almost as soon as she goes across the water. It also gives her some outright sheer power, which is why Tolkien said none could destroy Lorien with her there, lest Sauron himself come, and why she was able to single handedly lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur.
I don't know what half of what you just said means, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shan: The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
You know, that was another thing I was wondering about. All the goblins (who look exactly like orcs, by the way) look more or less the same size, so how did this one get so big? Okay, you can say he got fat from being the king, but how is he so tall? And not just tall, but huge. This guy is like nine feet tall and all the other goblins are like 5 feet tall. That just felt kinda strange to me.
I really wish Jackson had gone with live action bad guys instead of CGI. It all looked so artificial, although as always I enjoyed Gollum. The part where Radagast is riding around with his rabbits was especially bad and fake-looking. Hopefully technology catches up soon.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She does have a number of passive powers that keep Lothlorien alive. Being an ancient Noldorin Elf gives her some powers akin to the Bene Gesserit Voice, in a sense, and wielding Nenya gives her the power to sort of make things around her alive and powerful, the power to ensure and thrive against decay. It's why Lothlorien falls apart almost as soon as she goes across the water. It also gives her some outright sheer power, which is why Tolkien said none could destroy Lorien with her there, lest Sauron himself come, and why she was able to single handedly lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur.
I don't know what half of what you just said means, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
It's okay, most of it wasn't English anyway.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Shan: The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
You know, that was another thing I was wondering about. All the goblins (who look exactly like orcs, by the way) look more or less the same size, so how did this one get so big? Okay, you can say he got fat from being the king, but how is he so tall? And not just tall, but huge. This guy is like nine feet tall and all the other goblins are like 5 feet tall. That just felt kinda strange to me.
I really wish Jackson had gone with live action bad guys instead of CGI. It all looked so artificial, although as always I enjoyed Gollum. The part where Radagast is riding around with his rabbits was especially bad and fake-looking. Hopefully technology catches up soon.
That was Saruman's thing with the Uruk Hai.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Most of the orcs in LOTR were people too.
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Sort've, Tolkien was never satisfied with his portrayal of orcs and almost certainly I think we can conclude he wanted to make them more sympathetic at some point, maybe to the point of making them people with their own certainly once-noble civilization? But in the text and mythology as is he never got around to it.
Ideally if I were Tolkien, I would've made orcs a northernly high breeding people used to the cold but had a high death rate (like the Krogan in ME) and so decentralized and prone to in fighting that they couldn't threaten anyone until Morgoth got them under his sway.
As long as the orcs are canonically basically just tainted Elves there's very little wiggle room to make them multifaceted.
Posted by The White Whale (Member # 6594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: She does have a number of passive powers that keep Lothlorien alive. Being an ancient Noldorin Elf gives her some powers akin to the Bene Gesserit Voice, in a sense, and wielding Nenya gives her the power to sort of make things around her alive and powerful, the power to ensure and thrive against decay. It's why Lothlorien falls apart almost as soon as she goes across the water. It also gives her some outright sheer power, which is why Tolkien said none could destroy Lorien with her there, lest Sauron himself come, and why she was able to single handedly lay bare the pits of Dol Guldur.
I don't know what half of what you just said means, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.
It's okay, most of it wasn't English anyway.
You uber-geeked yourself by using a Dune mystic power to explain the LOTR mystic power. Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:Originally posted by Shan: The Goblin King still looks like he came out of "Where the Wild Things Are" . . .
You know, that was another thing I was wondering about. All the goblins (who look exactly like orcs, by the way) look more or less the same size, so how did this one get so big? Okay, you can say he got fat from being the king, but how is he so tall? And not just tall, but huge. This guy is like nine feet tall and all the other goblins are like 5 feet tall. That just felt kinda strange to me.
It made sense to me, that's why he was the king. Didya notice the smaller the goblins got, the stupider and more subservient they were? At least that's the impression I got, kinda like the Tallest in Invader Zim.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: I'd like to learn more about the origins of the wizards. They seem human, and yet they live as long as elves. Remember that line from The Two Towers, where Gandalf mutters, "300 ages of men I've lived, and now I have no time!"
I was surprised to learn in this new movie that Bilbo's mother was a Took, so he must have been a close relative of Peregrin (Pippin) Took.
He isn't a close relation, the Tooks are a huge family.
Elves don't age.
Wizards aren't human, they are Maiar...basically wise spirits. They can move things along, but can't use magic to effect great changes directly. They protect Middle Earth for influences that should not be there in the first place.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
A little off topic: does anyone know if/when it will be possible to watch Hobbit in China? I am in Xiamen right now, just came from Kunming, and both cities have no Hobbit. I want to see it! I can't find an answer on the Internet, too...
Posted by vegimo (Member # 12618) on :
It looks like the release date will be February 15.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
You could probably go to Hong Kong and see it right now. Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: You could probably go to Hong Kong and see it right now.
You could probably get a DVD of it in Hong Kong right now....
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
I would, but I have only one entry visa. And Hong Kong is technically abroad. Thanks a lot, I have something to look forward to (otherwise I'd have to watch it on DVD when I come back home, and I think it's you-wanna-watch-it-in-a-theater kind of movie). Thanks again!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hong Kong is abroad? Didn't they retake the city more than a decade ago?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
It's an autonomous city-state thing, (One Country Two Systems) with its own flag and stuff.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: It's an autonomous city-state thing, (One Country Two Systems) with its own flag and stuff.
If by autonomous you mean virtually its entire government is hand picked by Beijing.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, my understanding is that half of the legislative council is elected while half is appointed. Whether the appointments are more influenced by local oligarchs or by Beijing is a matter of debate, and practically speaking, is not too different. The chief executive is effectively picked by Beijing.
But more relevant to Syzmon, for most purposes of international trade, travel, and law, Hong Kong counts as "abroad" with it's own currency, laws, passport, and immigration policy. So he would need a multiple entry visa (to re-enter China, probably not to enter HK), prices for flights tend to follow international norms rather than domestic, HK has no censorship structure as in China, and the film distributors are different.
You will, however, probably have to pay out-the-nose to watch The Hobbit since it is a long film in 3D which will likely trigger additional fees on both counts.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Actually, my understanding is that half of the legislative council is elected while half is appointed. Whether the appointments are more influenced by local oligarchs or by Beijing is a matter of debate, and practically speaking, is not too different. The chief executive is effectively picked by Beijing.
You're right of course. I was just oversimplifying because it's a soar point for many folks in Hong Kong.
Posted by Derrell (Member # 6062) on :
Is Radagast as crazy as he comes across?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But more relevant to Syzmon, for most purposes of international trade, travel, and law, Hong Kong counts as "abroad" with it's own currency, laws, passport, and immigration policy. So he would need a multiple entry visa (to re-enter China, probably not to enter HK)
That's exactly what it means, unfortunately. I can go to Hong Kong without any visas, but I wouldn't be able to go back to mainland China. It's the same with Taiwan- although Taiwan actually IS an independent state.
Did you know, that hatrack is banned in China! To get to the forum I have to connect via VPN server You probably know about facebook and youtube.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the orcs in LOTR were people too.
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
No....similar, but not the same, IIRC.
Posted by Graeme (Member # 12543) on :
Tom Shippey, a philologist and preeminent Tolkien scholar, notes that goblin was the word used by Tolkien in The Hobbit, although even in that work he did make use of orc. However, the philologist and Old English-lover in Tokien grew dissatisfied with the relative newness of goblin (documented only since the 1500s) as well as its probable Latin origin as cobalus. Preferring an Old English word, he lifted the word orc from Beowulf, where it appeared in the compound words orc-neas ('demon-corpse') and orc-thyrs (thyrs meant something like giant). (J.R.R. Tolkien, Author of The Century, pp. 87-88)
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Szymon: It's the same with Taiwan- although Taiwan actually IS an independent state.
More independent than Hong Kong, less independent than Palestine now
quote: To get to the forum I have to connect via VPN server
How is that going these days? I've heard there's increasing work going into interfering with VPN connections now.
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
It takes 5 minutes to connect, connection is slow. I made a speed test- ping via VPN is like 480ms, without 80ms, downloading (but that depends on the place I am in, in my flat now though:) 340kb/s (sic!), without 8000kb/s. I don't know if it's a problem of interfering or simply distance.
And about independence- I would have to study the subject more closely, but at least my Taiwanese friends claim to be Taiwanese Chinese, never PRC, never ever. And Taiwan has a strong military. And it's not like the PRC can raise taxes or anything in RoC. But then economic influence is gigantic, probably. I don't know about palestine, but I would compare Taiwan to Ukraine. Russia stops sending gas and they're in big trouble. But then, so is Poland and the rest of Europe...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I was more joking about Palestine's ascension to nationhood in the UN whereas Taiwan, well, hasn't. I'm not sure there are any good modern parallels to Taiwan's situation. Ukraine doesn't really work.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the orcs in LOTR were people too.
Goblins and Orcs are the same thing. Goblins is considered the sort of quaint, old timey word for them, which Frodo makes fun of Bilbo for at a point or two in the literature.
No....similar, but not the same, IIRC.
What exactly is the difference? In LOTR, either Sam or Frodo makes a comment about how Bilbo called orcs goblins. And for that matter, Tolkien referred to the goblins of the Misty Mountains and Mt. Gundabad as orcs when referring to the assault on Erebor in the War of the Ring.
I've yet to note a real difference.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Orcs were cousins of goblins, and were stronger and tougher.
In earlier works they were referred to as different creatures, but in LOTR is seems that he had merged the terms.
By the time of Turin they were the being referred to as the same race, with sub-species, some which were stronger and more suited to direct warfare.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Huh, I don't remember that breakdown, especially in the Silmarillion. Where is that written about?
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
There is nothing about goblins in Silmarillion at all. I checked on google books. The only time they're mentioned is like this "Orcs (goblins)..."
Posted by Szymon (Member # 7103) on :
A guy on yahoo wrote:
quote: Generally they are the same race and are not two different creatures, but the conceptual distinction was present in the Hobbit. The goblinoid race was bred by the fallen Vala Morgoth from captured Elves during the First Age, long before the time of the Rings- Sauron never knew how to continue corrupting Elves, had lost the ability to, or just didn't need to as the goblinoid race was self-perpetuating. By the time of LotR, the two breeds were somewhat conceptualized as that "goblins" were a smaller, weaker breed, usually living underground and may simply have referred to location, as the chief in the northern Misty Mountains was the "Great Goblin", and definitely was a large, bipedal, goblinoid creature compatible with physical descriptions of orcs and uruks later. The orcs seem to have been a more versatile breed or group, generally stronger and larger, and used to breed the Uruk-Hai. The Uruks could operate in the sunlight with no penalty, but it dazed, blinded, and confused the lesser goblinoids. Even though Tolkien really does not distinguish between these two terms, he injects enough of a conceptual difference that the writers of the movies picked up on it and worked it into the story.
and another posted a letter by JRRT:
quote:
Your preference of /goblins/ to /orcs/ involves a large question and a matter of taste, and perhaps historical pedantry on my part. Personally I prefer /Orcs/(since these creatures are not ‘goblins’, not even the goblins of George MacDonald, which they do to some extent resemble). Also I now deeply regret having used Elves, though this is a word in ancestry and original meaning suitable enough. But the disastrous debasement of this word, in which Shakespeare played an unforgiveable part, has really overloaded it with regrettable tones, which are too much to overcome. I hope in the Appendices to Vol. III to be able to include a note ‘On translation’ in which the matter of equivalences and my uses may be made clearly. My difficulty has been that, since I have tried to present a kind of legendary and history of a ‘forgotten epoch’, all the specific terms were in a foreign language, and no /precise/ equivalents exist in English. ....
Posted by LargeTuna (Member # 10512) on :
My Review:
I really liked it. But I love the books and the other three movies, so that's not really unexpected.
My top three cinematic Scenes: 1. The riddles in the dark sequence 2. The Stone giants battle 3. The Thorin/Bilbo moments near the end
My complaints: I loved the first 40 minutes of Fellowship, because we were getting character development and a painting of the shire. The meeting at Bag End shouldn't have lasted 40 minutes in the Hobbit. It really dragged for me. The dwarves escaping death was just so strangely cartoonish, especially when meeting the goblins. The conflicting tones really bothered me. And I think a lot of the CG went a little overboard.
But I stand by that the movie got more right than it did wrong. It was always going to be difficult to follow the Lord of the Rings movies.
Anyone else agree?
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I liked this movie myself. Also Thorin was rather handsome yet racist, but him and Kili remind me of heavy metal viking musicians and I like them if they are not racist. I am just cross that they must stretch this story so much.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
WWAD moments.
The LOTR had a great hero--Aragorn--who commanded, fought, and even loved at the appropriate times in the appropriate ways.
Thorin, and to a lesser extent Bilbo seem to be flawed heroes. Thorin isn't the best leader, and isn't the best fighter--except for that race through the goblin tunnels. Yet when pushed to extremes he has these sudden What Would Aragorn Do moments, and he charges into battle. Its like Peter Jackson wants him to be Aragorn, and he tries, but he just isn't there yet and fails.
Even Bilbo, out on the burning tree limb, or hiding invisible while listening to the dwarves, or even while holding sting over Gollum, has a moment to think "What would Aragorn do? Hmm? OK, I'll do that."
I think I'll put that on my list as well. Today, as I'm working, I will consider "What would Aragorn do."
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There's nothing totally wrong with that. Thorin is supposed to be a flawed hero. One of the bigger moments of the book is at the end when Thorin realizes how much of a fool he was for so long, especially in how he treated Bilbo. Part of what I didn't like about Bilbo's badass attack moment at the fir trees was that Thorin seemed to regard him in a much better light, and that's something he isn't supposed to do until the very end. He spends most of the book being petty and snippy. But he's still brave and skilled, despite not being as nice as Aragorn. I think the difference is that they're both skilled warriors, but Aragorn is also altruistic, which is a trait Thorin decidedly lacks.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think its meant to make the scene where he cusses out Biblo for taking the Crystal a little more tragic.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I think its meant to make the scene where he cusses out Biblo for taking the Crystal a little more tragic.
The Arkenstone, you mean?
Yeah, I'm betting on your theory. Jackson handles the raw emotions around betrayal very well...remember the scene where Gollum convinces Frodo that Sam ate all the lembas bread?
Posted by John Stephen (Member # 12954) on :
It's really a great movie watched last month online with my friends. We enjoyed this movie a lot.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
My copy of the DVD version of The Hobbit arrived last week in the mail, thanks to Amazon--just four days after the release date via ordinary shipping. Price including shipping was $17.95. I liked it even better than when I saw the movie in the theatre, even though that was in 3D and 48 frames-per-second. Maybe part of it was I could hear even better since I used headphones with my computer's DVD player. I also have a high-resolution monitor.
The second disk contained over two hours of production features, for some reason called "blogs." It was delightful to see the wonderful New Zealand countryside again, this time many additional places not seen in the Trilogy. New Zealand has fantastic scenery, amazingly varied for such a small country. It was a pleasure to see all the people and actors behind the scenes. Many actors from the Trilogy were in this movie. Cate Blanchett does not seem to have aged at all! Elijah Wood still looks like Frodo (appears in the first part of the movie, since the story of The Hobbit was supposedly told for his benefit).
At one point they used ten helicopters at once to haul people and materials to remote mountain locations, and five helicopters were commonly used. Several times they showed the five helicopters flying in formation. At other times they used up to 240 ground vehicles, including a fleet of big semis. This was besides huge sets that rival Universal Studios, and rebuilding Hobbiton this time with permanent materials (for the tourist trade). I don't know how much they spent making this movie, but it must have been a staggering amount. But since they'll make billions, who cares? (I read that despite mixed reviews, they took in $900 million worldwide--and this is before all the DVD sales, etc.)
The second movie, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, is predicted by some websites to be released December 13, 2013. There are reports that a third installment will be released in the summer of 2014, There and Back Again (that was also the operating title for the second movie until they settled on The Desolation of Smaug), but I would think that after Smaug is desolated, there is not much more of the story to tell. Can they make an entire movie that is just denouement? I kind of hope that Peter Jackson keeps it down to just two installments.
By the way, Peter Jackson has lost a lot of weight. I didn't recognize him at first. That is good news for those of us who hope he lives longer to create more quality movies. Whether or not you like the way he handles Tolkien's stories, it is hard to imagine anyone else with the daring and know-how and organizational ability to have made the Lord of the Rings Trilogy. Those same qualities are evident with The Hobbit, too. Who else could have done it?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
They're called blogs, I believe, because they're a collection of the production blogs he did and posted on Facebook and other websites over the last year or two. They weren't created specially for the DVD release. That will come later when he inevitably does four or five rounds of extended editions and special releases.
Of course Cate Blanchett hasn't aged; she's an Elf!
The "desolation" in Desolation of Smaug isn't a reference to what happens to him, but rather to what Smaug himself has done. Erebor and Dale are desolated by Smaug, and the reference is to the Dwarves entering this part of their journey.
After Smaug is killed is the Battle of Five armies, so there's actually still quite a lot of story to tell. Besides, somewhere between the end of this movie and the Battle of Five Armies is when the White Council attacks Dol Goldur, so it will be interesting to see how they cover that, and how hard Jackson tries to connect Hobbit to LOTR.
Jackson has actually put quite a few pounds back on. He lost a ton of weight a few years ago, he almost looked unhealthy, but some has gone back on during the shooting of Hobbit.
Posted by umberhulk (Member # 11788) on :
Yeah, it's probably a stress thing related to film production. David Jaffe, videogame director, talked about how he would put on weight during lengthy projects. Sometimes you really don't appreciate the complications of film production and what it puts some people through. Check out the the documentary "Burden of Dreams" It's nuts.
Anyway, can't wait for part two. Mirkwood, baby. Mirkwood. I hope they layoff of the slowmotion in this one--particularly relating to Smaug.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
They already showed the desolation BY Smaug at the start of The Hobbit, so I expect the desolation OF Smaug would refer to his demise.
Of course, Jackson could make some stuff up for the third film, more things to tie the Necromancer to Sauron, maybe even get a cameo by Tom Bombadil in there. He could be put in anywhere, since he does nothing to advance the plot. Of course, that is why he was left out of LOTR.
I wonder how many donuts get eaten during production! Jackson should make a cop movie. Yeah, I did notice he put a little weight back on in the latter "blogs," but still nothing like the way he used to be during production of LOTR.
Lyrhawn, do you think they will really put out an extended release version? If they do, then I will have to get that. I wish they had announced something about it.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
I think Smaug is almost certainly dead by the end of Movie 2. They need a good climax, and what else could movie 2 end on? Oh, I guess the Necromancer?
If they finish everything at Dol Guldur, maybe. Skeptical, though. That also seems narratively wonky. Interweave your non-Hobbit narrative through all three movies or don't do it at all.
Nah. Movie 2 is Mirkwood/Laketown/Smaug. Movie 3 is excessively long 5 Armies battles and probably Dol Guldur battles too, and an hour of endings.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:I expect the desolation OF Smaug would refer to his demise
The Desolation of Smaug is a place. It's on the map that comes with the book. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Lyrhawn, do you think they will really put out an extended release version? If they do, then I will have to get that. I wish they had announced something about it.
He's already made reference to it. On the one hand you could just assume he will. On the other hand, he's creating a whole extra movie to shove material into, so one could also assume since they've really had to reach to come up with more material, they don't need extended editions.
But he's already said he has material for them. I won't be excited to rush out and get them, I already think the first movie was overlong and bloated, but it might be interesting later on.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
List of action points in the book: 1st Meeting Dinner Trolls Rivendel Misty Mountains Goblin King Gollum Escape via Gandalf and Ring Burning Tree Escape via Eagles.
End of 1st movie.
Meeting Beorn (sp?) Entering Mirkwood/Gandalph leaves Bomburs Sleeps--Endless Mirkwood Trail Lost in Mirkwood Capture by Spiders Capture by Elves (Somewhere in here is when The White Council attacks the Necromancer) Escape by Barrels Reception By Bard and town.
This seems the natural place to end Movie 2 to me.
Trip to Smaug Finding the secret door. Theft of 1st trinket Smaug attacks and death of Smaug.
This may be where it could end--whats left?
Dividing the treasure--Arkenstone fight The Arrival of the first 2 armies--Bardlings and Elves. The Arrival of the other armies--Goblins and Wolves and Bats--and Iron Hill Dwarves and Eagles. Death of Thorin and others The trip home Losing his best silver as Bag End's sale is disrupted.
Without Smaug the 3rd movie seems short.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
You're leaving out Dol Guldur. And forgetting how much Jackson loves really long battles.
But I guess you're right, arrival in Laketown could be movie 2 ending.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If the White Council material is that big, then your second movie is also pretty big. I think ending the second movie with the death of Smaug has more punch, otherwise the second movie actually starts to look pretty boring action-wise. I agree getting to Laketown is a natural stopping point, but it's not very satisfying.
I'd suggest moving all the white council stuff to the third movie. Cover it at the very beginning while they're still futzing around in Lonely Mountain and then pull it back to the north.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)