I went over Christmas and loved it - just trying to decide whether to get my oh to take me to see it again but in 3-D this time for my birthday treat in a couple of weeks (I'm a cheap date!).
I can't understand why people are moaning about there being three films. I wish there were more!
Its a strange argument based purely upon being indignant about paying three times over for one book, which would take about 7-10 hours to read at a leisurely pace (the unabridged audiobook contains 10 CDs at say 50 minutes per disc). Here we get nearly 9 hours of cinematic goodness, none of that cramming a whole books worth into a couple of hours.
I can't understand why people are moaning about there being three films. I wish there were more!
its not that hard to understand really. It will be 3 padded out films with less focus than the originals, many would rather one film or 2 at the most so it feels like there is a more solid narrative. Even the fans of the book say this. not all the people that love the universe want to see 3 more epics that dont match the originals, they have to be compared because Jackson has made them near identical. if you want to watch endless LOTR films thats great but the quality of the story will diminish and do the series a disservice
the basic fact is that some love the new installment and others got nothing from it. I'm on the fence until the next one comes out, but am not that optimistic. the material just isnt there and these films will be like a little bonus after the real thing.
I dont get how some people think The Hobbit is better that the original series, for one thing its not different enough, what does it do better? I guess it comes done to the fact its all very subjective.
in the book does Gandalf save them from the Trolls ?
yeah I thought that, I didnt think the scene worked but thought ok well he wants to be accurate to the works so fair enough, but it wasnt was it lol so what was the point of putting it in, it just distracted from the flow of the film anyway. Off subject I think edited down this film would be a lot better, when the whole trilogy is out im guessing it will have the most fan edits of all time :eek:
I liked : the scenery looked amazing , Freeman was good , Gandalf was in it a lot more than I expected .
the giant mountain-men battle was strangely cool . It was pretty funny in places .
but some of the action scenes got ridiculous .
and the FX varied quite a bit .
in the book does Gandalf save them from the Trolls ?
I thought Bilbo escaped from the trolls in the book by imitating their voices so it made them confused, or something like that Don't remember Gandalf turning up then.
I thought Bilbo escaped from the trolls in the book by imitating their voices so it made them confused, or something like that Don't remember Gandalf turning up then.
he dragged it out until sunrise then they escaped if I remember, which obviously wouldnt translate well to film, I dont think the altered version did much better tbh and was totally unnecessary but thats just me I guess. it felt like a deleted scene to me, something you could choose to watch in the extras if you wanted
its not that hard to understand really. It will be 3 padded out films with less focus than the originals, many would rather one film or 2 at the most so it feels like there is a more solid narrative. Even the fans of the book say this. not all the people that love the universe want to see 3 more epics that dont match the originals, they have to be compared because Jackson has made them near identical. if you want to watch endless LOTR films thats great but the quality of the story will diminish and do the series a disservice
the basic fact is that some love the new installment and others got nothing from it. I'm on the fence until the next one comes out, but am not that optimistic. the material just isnt there and these films will be like a little bonus after the real thing.
I dont get how some people think The Hobbit is better that the original series, for one thing its not different enough, what does it do better? I guess it comes done to the fact its all very subjective.
Who says the quality of the stories will diminish?
PJ made a mistake calling the films "The Hobbit". He should have called them "The Hobbit with supplementary material taken from other writings by Tolkien, like the appendices, and with the background story fleshed out based on what we now know thanks to the subsequent publication of The Lord of the Rings", but that's a little unwieldy for a title.
Perhaps he thought that filmgoers would just get it. Too optimistic!
Personally, i think Aiden Turner was a bit useless. He was cast simply cos they needed at least one good looking Hobbit, and it comes across in his lacklustre performance.
But it gives you ladies something nice to look at, i suppose.
Personally, i think Aiden Turner was a bit useless. He was cast simply cos they needed at least one good looking Hobbit, and it comes across in his lacklustre performance.
But it gives you ladies something nice to look at, i suppose.
Do yourself a favour and watch the film on a crystal clear cinema screen.
I've seen it at the cinema in awful 48fps, the pirated copy may not be HD quality, it's 304p which is definitely good enough quality to watch and appreciate the film.
You're doing yourself a disservice by watching it in that shitty quality.
I sent you a different version,you were the one to ask where, you didnt have time to download and check it, I was only trying to help you. You didnt even thank me for trying to help.
Personally, i think Aiden Turner was a bit useless. He was cast simply cos they needed at least one good looking Hobbit, and it comes across in his lacklustre performance.
But it gives you ladies something nice to look at, i suppose.
Yes, it does. Always a nice bonus, I think. Though his performance as a dwarf is fine.
Comments
Its a strange argument based purely upon being indignant about paying three times over for one book, which would take about 7-10 hours to read at a leisurely pace (the unabridged audiobook contains 10 CDs at say 50 minutes per disc). Here we get nearly 9 hours of cinematic goodness, none of that cramming a whole books worth into a couple of hours.
its not that hard to understand really. It will be 3 padded out films with less focus than the originals, many would rather one film or 2 at the most so it feels like there is a more solid narrative. Even the fans of the book say this. not all the people that love the universe want to see 3 more epics that dont match the originals, they have to be compared because Jackson has made them near identical. if you want to watch endless LOTR films thats great but the quality of the story will diminish and do the series a disservice
the basic fact is that some love the new installment and others got nothing from it. I'm on the fence until the next one comes out, but am not that optimistic. the material just isnt there and these films will be like a little bonus after the real thing.
I dont get how some people think The Hobbit is better that the original series, for one thing its not different enough, what does it do better? I guess it comes done to the fact its all very subjective.
I liked : the scenery looked amazing , Freeman was good , Gandalf was in it a lot more than I expected .
the giant mountain-men battle was strangely cool . It was pretty funny in places .
but some of the action scenes got ridiculous .
and the FX varied quite a bit .
in the book does Gandalf save them from the Trolls ?
yeah I thought that, I didnt think the scene worked but thought ok well he wants to be accurate to the works so fair enough, but it wasnt was it lol so what was the point of putting it in, it just distracted from the flow of the film anyway. Off subject I think edited down this film would be a lot better, when the whole trilogy is out im guessing it will have the most fan edits of all time :eek:
I thought Bilbo escaped from the trolls in the book by imitating their voices so it made them confused, or something like that Don't remember Gandalf turning up then.
he dragged it out until sunrise then they escaped if I remember, which obviously wouldnt translate well to film, I dont think the altered version did much better tbh and was totally unnecessary but thats just me I guess. it felt like a deleted scene to me, something you could choose to watch in the extras if you wanted
Who says the quality of the stories will diminish?
PJ made a mistake calling the films "The Hobbit". He should have called them "The Hobbit with supplementary material taken from other writings by Tolkien, like the appendices, and with the background story fleshed out based on what we now know thanks to the subsequent publication of The Lord of the Rings", but that's a little unwieldy for a title.
Perhaps he thought that filmgoers would just get it. Too optimistic!
He stole a few scenes. I think he will suddenly be getting some extra scenes in the next two films...:D
I loved him is 'Desperate Romantics'. He hardly had his clothes on at all. Seems a bit wrong to perve over a Middle-earth dwarf though.:o
But it gives you ladies something nice to look at, i suppose.
It's awful. Pixelated and blurry.
Do yourself a favour and watch the film on a crystal clear cinema screen.
Where?
Looks and sounds awful.
You're doing yourself a disservice by watching it in that shitty quality.
Dwarf, you mean.
I thought his brother was sexier.
I've seen it at the cinema in awful 48fps, the pirated copy may not be HD quality, it's 304p which is definitely good enough quality to watch and appreciate the film.
I sent you a different version,you were the one to ask where, you didnt have time to download and check it, I was only trying to help you. You didnt even thank me for trying to help.
Some people
Yes, it does. Always a nice bonus, I think. Though his performance as a dwarf is fine.
He was good with a bow and arrow!