• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Hobbit - Official Thread of Officially In Production

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Candeldandel said:
They're taking the... We're taking the dwarves to... Erabor? To the dungeons. To... Laketown! To battle!

Just guessing, lol :p
Click to expand...
I'm hoping he gets Bilbo's name wrong like Kili, who calls him Mr Boggins. All we need is a Biblio and Tolkien GAF's very own Biblio Boggins will have featured in the trilogy.
 
C

Candeldandel

Member
Edmond Dantès;51855693 said:
I'm hoping he gets Bilbo's name wrong like Kili, who calls him Mr Boggins. All we need is a Biblio and Tolkien GAF's very own Biblio Boggins will have featured in the trilogy.
Click to expand...

Waaait a minute, I haven't heard anything about this... did I miss something? Is there a story I skipped over, maybe? Oh noes, where have I been?!

PS Then you would have to love the movies, you know :p
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Napalm_Frank said:
Can we expect Legolas surfing on a winebarrel? :)

I'm looking foreward to Legolas+Thranduil scenes.
Click to expand...
Another drinking game would be good. Dorwinion wine is much stronger stuff than beer.

There's supposed to be a sparring scene involving father and son if I remember correctly from one of the Vlogs.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Candeldandel said:
Waaait a minute, I haven't heard anything about this... did I miss something? Is there a story I skipped over, maybe? Oh noes, where have I been?!

PS Then you would have to love the movies, you know :p
Click to expand...
It's a long running joke within Tolkien GAF. My niece called him that (the little munchkin still does) and I loved the name so much that I started calling him that on GAF and it stuck.

Check the Hobbit OT's opening paragraph and this thread's OP for sneaky mentions of Biblio Boggins.
 
N

Napalm_Frank

Member
Edmond Dantès;51856797 said:
Another drinking game would be good. Dorwinion wine is much stronger stuff than beer.

There's supposed to be a sparring scene involving father and son if I remember correctly from one of the Vlogs.
Click to expand...

Could be fun. I am interested to see just how much of a douchebag they make Thranduil to be.

Bought Lawrence of Arabia remaster dvd for 4 euros btw. Blu-Ray of course would be preferable but couldn't pass on that deal since I don't exactly know what to expect!
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Napalm_Frank said:
Could be fun. I am interested to see just how much of a douchebag they make Thranduil to be.

Bought Lawrence of Arabia remaster dvd for 4 euros btw. Blu-Ray of course would be preferable but couldn't pass on that deal since I don't exactly know what to expect!
Click to expand...
I hope you enjoy it.

Many people who I've recommended it to have.
 
G

-griffy-

Banned
Loxley said:
What makes it more frustrating is that they could have easily just tossed in some made-up backstory for why Sting was the only sword among the three that did glow. Perhaps Gandalf could tell the blade's alloy was imbued with some sort of, I don't know, special mineral created by the smiths of Gondolin to detect orcs or something.

Also, as long as we're on the topic of Sting, I don't think I've mentioned how I disliked the way Sting "went out" after Gollum killed the Goblin that fell into the cavern with Bilbo. It flickers out like a lightbulb, which was a bit goofy looking. Especially since - in Return of the King - there's a moment where Sting is lying on the ground next to Sam after he tries to save Frodo from Shelob, that pack of Orcs comes near and Sting's glow slowly begins to intensify, it doesn't "switch on".

Yeah, it's a nit-pick, but there are already plenty of people complaining out some of the film's bigger issues so I've taken up the task of griping about the small and insignificant ones :)
Click to expand...
I assumed sting "flickered" out because that's how the Orc passed from life into death. He went in and out and died. It "faded" alight in Return of the King because it sensed the orcs slowly getting closer. If they had teleported right next to Sam I imagine it would have instantly been lit up.
 
T

timetokill

Banned
Edmond Dantès;51846213 said:
I'll probably do the same. Very much looking forward to extras available in the extended edition.
Click to expand...

Yup. My wife is obsessed with the Hobbit but I convinced her to wait for the extended edition, so at most we'll be buying two copies of it instead of three.
 
K

Knoxcore

Member
Dyno said:
I watched the film for the second time, at home, via Blu Ray. I liked it enough when I saw it in the theatre, I liked it even better at home.
Click to expand...

I first saw the movie in IMAX 3D @ 48fps. I was distracted by the 48fps and left the movie pretty unhappy about it. On the second viewing in the comfort of my home, I think it was a solid adventure with some flaws. Definitely won't be seeing the next two in 3D.
 
Ixion

Ixion

Member
Edmond Dantès;51848826 said:
Much of your criticisms are related to the source material. The novel follows the very same structure with one set piece after another interspersed with short periods of downtime.
Click to expand...

Thing is, you can read through the first six chapters in 1 hour, whereas the film takes 3 hours to get through those chapters.

The novel works because it's quick and therefore whimsical. The movies takes a story meant for whimsy and draws it out.

So it's not necessarily a problem with the source material.
 
V

vagabondarts

Member
Megalosaro said:
If the Lego sets are anything to go by, it's going to be Legolas and Tauriel who kill the spiders and save the dwarves.
Click to expand...

I don't know how I feel about this...

I'll have to see it in the context of the movie I guess. I don't really mind a lot of Peter's other changes too much, because the imagery in the book is still mine, despite the movies existing... if that makes sense.

I cringe at the goblin king stuff though:
"What'll you do now wizard?"
*skin cut*
"that'll do it"
*dwarves & G surf down caves on bridge*
 
C

Candeldandel

Member
Edmond Dantès;51857604 said:
It's a long running joke within Tolkien GAF. My niece called him that (the little munchkin still does) and I loved the name so much that I started calling him that on GAF and it stuck.

Check the Hobbit OT's opening paragraph and this thread's OP for sneaky mentions of Biblio Boggins.
Click to expand...

Holy shit Edmond, that's freakin' adorable.

...Aaaand you're not kidding, that is most definitely a photo of Martin Freeman being cast as Biblio Boggins, lol! Sneaky for sure! Pretty sure I wouldn't've noticed if you hadn't mentioned anything; not surprising that I missed it, since I lurked for a long, long time before posting anything... so glad I did, though <3 Post something, I mean. Goddamn I love Tolkien GAF <3

Edit: OK, I can't go back and look at the dizzying amount of hype for the movies at the beginning of the thread, it's both exciting and a little sad, especially since everyone is still talking about two films, and extra characters, and bringing up stuff from LOTR that PJ "butchered"...

OH WELL! This sure does still apply for SMAUG!

jambo said:
wAlpI.jpg


ALL ABOARD!!!
Click to expand...
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
HFR discussed at the international 3D Creative Summit in London
Higher Frame Rate technology was a key discussion point and frequent whipping boy at the first international 3D Creative Summit in London this week.

Phil Oatley and Meetal Gokul of Peter Jackson’s New Zealand-based Park Road Post, who worked on Jackson’s ground-breaking 48 frame-per-second HFR production “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” presented a showcase on the film on Thursday (March 28).

“HFR solves some of the issues with strobing, etc. It creates a more immersive 3D experience,” argued Oatley, head of technology at Park Road Post. He explained the production had chosen to go with 48 FPS since it provided a clean path to traditional 24 FPS deliverables and an easy deployment path for exhibitors since most current 4K digital projectors.

The showcase drew a lot of interest and was one of the best attended sessions of the two-day event. However, HFR cynics were out in force across other panels and “The Hobbit” was on the receiving end of much of the criticism.

“I think the jury is out,” said Drew Kaza, executive vice prexy of digital development for exhibitor Odeon. “The technology is there. ‘The Hobbit’ was a useful experiment but it was an imperfect project for it and there was poor marketing of the concept. I felt it was the wrong film. ‘Life of Pi’ rather than ‘Hobbit’ should have been HFR and you would have seen the difference.”

“As an outsider I thought it lacked conviction but it was an interesting test,” agreed Cameron Saunders, managing director of 20th Century Fox U.K.

“We’re looking at HFR,” admitted Anthony Geffen, chief executive of Atlantic Prods., responsible for the Sky 3D’s natural history skeins fronted by David Attenborough. ” ‘The Hobbit’ was not a great example of playing with HFR in my opinion.”

“HFR helps with the motion, it helps you see the picture more,” said DreamWorks Animation’s Phil McNally. “Filmmaking has to get better to match HFR.” McNally admitted DWA hadn’t done any tests in HFR. “We thought we’d let live action fight that fight. Animation led the fight on 3D.”

Tom Barnes, technical director of Aardman Animation, said the British studio is highly unlikely to consider HFR. “A higher frame rate wouldn’t make any sense for stop frame animation,” argued Barnes. “There would be very few advantages. I would much rather shoot 4K.”

“When I saw ‘The Hobbit’ in HFR I hated it so much,” added Aardman cinematography Frank Passingham. “You’re seeing too much. I thought HFR was this huge monster fighting itself on screen and no-one was winning.”

“I think it’s generational,” suggested Kaza, offering a ray of light. “Young people, under 25, come from a gaming, hi-res experience will like it because they’re used to it.”
Click to expand...
http://variety.com/2013/digital/news/hobbit-vets-high-on-hfr-but-others-are-wary-1200330693/


Phil McNally's spot on with his assessment.
 
T

timetokill

Banned
C

Candeldandel

Member
timetokill said:
Personally I loved the HFR. Saw the Hobbit recently at home (first time since seeing it in theatres) and it really loses a lot of the "wow, I am there" impact that you get from seeing the outdoor scenes in HFR.
Click to expand...

I also loved it; it added a lot of depth ("I am there") to the environment which is a key part of PJ's Middle Earth. I also had a much easier time following the action in relation to which dwarf was where, doing what, and also where me as a viewer is... watching from? instead of it just being a blurry mess which usually tunes me out of a massive amount of action in any movie. (Good lord that is an awful sentence.)

I can, however, see where people would be turned off by the hyper-realism that shines through with the extra frames. It's only available with 3D (which a lot of people still have issues with) and also the fact that it is a fucking long movie, which makes it more than a movie (for some) and more like a commitment. So instead of sitting down and watching, say, ParaNorman in 3D for an hour and a half, it's more than double the length alone, plus HFR. I also agree that there is a generational element to it, though probably not quite as constricted as was stated in the article: my friends (mid-30s) totally loved the HFR, and my dad and his ladyfriend, who're 65 & 56 (?), liked the non-HFR 3D well enough. Of course, it all becomes subjective at some point, but I can totally understand why a fair amount of people didn't find it enjoyable (unfortunately).

I think what makes me the most disappointed is that HFR is inevitably tied to the movie as a whole, whether you view it in that format or not, marring every version with the distaste that some have with it. That is to say, people won't give it a chance because they heard the one version is headache-inducing, looks sped-up or what-have-you. I don't blame people for being confused about what was what, either; it took a fair amount of effort on my part to figure out where the hell to see what version I was after, since only a few theaters were equipped for every version of the film. That was a huge pain in the ass and I hope they can get that shit sorted for the next two films beforehand :|

And... I do wish they'd let the HFR method mellow on other movies before trailblazing with The Hobbit :( The movie was gonna be under the goddamn micron-o-scope before slapping a ton of new tech onto it besides; it's The Hobbit. After waiting for so long to see if it would even get made, going through a few directors hopping on and off the project... And then making it 3 movies?! It's like they wanted people to get pissed off about it :( Frustrating, to say the very least.

Anyway. Enough of my rambling. Even with all of its faults it's become my most favorite movie, and will remain so for... ever, I would imagine. We'll see when December rolls around again ;)
 
S

Suairyu

Banned
I'm actually really sad that I won't get to experience An Unexpected Journey in 48fps in the home for many years to come. I thought the effect (after the first five minute adjustment period) was astounding.

Now, interesting, Ian Holm opening the box and taking out the materials in the beginning shots is what jarred the most for me in the film, and watching it again at 24fps it also doesn't look right. I wonder if something is wrong with it? Probably not, probably me just imagining things, but it interests me that at both 24fps and 48fps it looks odd to me.

Am eagerly awaiting the EE. Watching the EE's right before watching the new LOTR in the cinema was such a big part of my life back then!

Re: the guy complaining about pacing - Unexpected felt to me like a fun adventure. When the dwarves rush the trolls and that music kicks in... I dunno. The almost relaxed nature of the fight just felt right to me. Despite not being in Tolkien's work, it felt Tokien-esque: almost light-hearted in its application, with a rhythm to the choreography like there's a rhythm to the prose of his writing.

I can't properly explain it, but the lack of particularly strong pacing was a strength in the case of this film, at least for me. It was long and dragged on, but never once did it feel boring. It felt magical in a way that the LOTR trilogy never did, in much the same way the LOTR books didn't have the same magical feel of the Hobbit.

The two works have two very different tones, and I like that.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Candeldandel said:
I also loved it; it added a lot of depth ("I am there") to the environment which is a key part of PJ's Middle Earth. I also had a much easier time following the action in relation to which dwarf was where, doing what, and also where me as a viewer is... watching from? instead of it just being a blurry mess which usually tunes me out of a massive amount of action in any movie. (Good lord that is an awful sentence.)

I can, however, see where people would be turned off by the hyper-realism that shines through with the extra frames. It's only available with 3D (which a lot of people still have issues with) and also the fact that it is a fucking long movie, which makes it more than a movie (for some) and more like a commitment. So instead of sitting down and watching, say, ParaNorman in 3D for an hour and a half, it's more than double the length alone, plus HFR. I also agree that there is a generational element to it, though probably not quite as constricted as was stated in the article: my friends (mid-30s) totally loved the HFR, and my dad and his ladyfriend, who're 65 & 56 (?), liked the non-HFR 3D well enough. Of course, it all becomes subjective at some point, but I can totally understand why a fair amount of people didn't find it enjoyable (unfortunately).

I think what makes me the most disappointed is that HFR is inevitably tied to the movie as a whole, whether you view it in that format or not, marring every version with the distaste that some have with it. That is to say, people won't give it a chance because they heard the one version is headache-inducing, looks sped-up or what-have-you. I don't blame people for being confused about what was what, either; it took a fair amount of effort on my part to figure out where the hell to see what version I was after, since only a few theaters were equipped for every version of the film. That was a huge pain in the ass and I hope they can get that shit sorted for the next two films beforehand :|

And... I do wish they'd let the HFR method mellow on other movies before trailblazing with The Hobbit :( The movie was gonna be under the goddamn micron-o-scope before slapping a ton of new tech onto it besides; it's The Hobbit. After waiting for so long to see if it would even get made, going through a few directors hopping on and off the project... And then making it 3 movies?! It's like they wanted people to get pissed off about it :( Frustrating, to say the very least.

Anyway. Enough of my rambling. Even with all of its faults it's become my most favorite movie, and will remain so for... ever, I would imagine. We'll see when December rolls around again ;)
Click to expand...
I'm curious Candeldandel, if all goes well with the next two films and when all is said and done with The Hobbit trilogy. Will it mean more to you than The Lord of the Rings trilogy or will they be on par with each other in your mind?
 
J

JB1981

Member
Finally finished my 2nd viewing of this at home on blu ray. I can't see myself ever sitting down to watch this movie again. There are no scenes that stick with me. I can't even count on one hand the amount of great scenes/images/sequences from FOTR that I could revisit over and over. There is nothing like that in this movie. Nothing memorable, nothing that I can't wait to return to. Well maybe I shouldn't say nothing but I don't understand why this movie, in its current form, exists. Literally nothing happens. It's like The Phantom Menace of the LOTR movies. Actually I think TPM might have been more entertaining.

The magic is gone
 
A

AngmarsKing701

Member
JB1981 said:
Finally finished my 2nd viewing of this at home on blu ray. I can't see myself ever sitting down to watch this movie again. There are no scenes that stick with me. I can't even count on one hand the amount of great scenes/images/sequences from FOTR that I could revisit over and over. There is nothing like that in this movie. Nothing memorable, nothing that I can't wait to return to. Well maybe I shouldn't say nothing but I don't understand why this movie, in its current form, exists. Literally nothing happens. It's like The Phantom Menace of the LOTR movies. Actually I think TPM might have been more entertaining.

The magic is gone
Click to expand...

JB1981
I am full of shit.
Rich, smooth, creamy shit.
 
L

Loxley

Member
JB1981 said:
Finally finished my 2nd viewing of this at home on blu ray. I can't see myself ever sitting down to watch this movie again. There are no scenes that stick with me. I can't even count on one hand the amount of great scenes/images/sequences from FOTR that I could revisit over and over. There is nothing like that in this movie. Nothing memorable, nothing that I can't wait to return to. Well maybe I shouldn't say nothing but I don't understand why this movie, in its current form, exists. Literally nothing happens. It's like The Phantom Menace of the LOTR movies. Actually I think TPM might have been more entertaining.

The magic is gone
Click to expand...

I understand people disliking AUJ, to each his own, but when I see people compare it to The Phantom Menace it makes me want to stick a fork in a toaster. Blech.
 
I

Iceman

Member
timetokill said:
Personally I loved the HFR. Saw the Hobbit recently at home (first time since seeing it in theatres) and it really loses a lot of the "wow, I am there" impact that you get from seeing the outdoor scenes in HFR.
Click to expand...

does it not improve with interpolation? I would be using PureEngine on my OptomaHD33. I think it does creative frame interpolation very well.
 
J

JB1981

Member
Loxley said:
I understand people disliking AUJ, to each his own, but when I see people compare it to The Phantom Menace it makes me want to stick a fork in a toaster. Blech.
Click to expand...

I am a massive fan of the original trilogy. I own like 3 different versions of the movies on DVD and blu ray. I went to the TTT world premiere at the Ziegfeld in NYC. I adore these movies. The Hobbit is mediocre in my opinion. It's long, it plods along, the action doesn't excite, there is very little drama. The ending is cheesy. Even Gandalf feels off.
 
D

Dmax3901

Member
Suairyu said:
I'm actually really sad that I won't get to experience An Unexpected Journey in 48fps in the home for many years to come. I thought the effect (after the first five minute adjustment period) was astounding.

Now, interesting, Ian Holm opening the box and taking out the materials in the beginning shots is what jarred the most for me in the film, and watching it again at 24fps it also doesn't look right. I wonder if something is wrong with it? Probably not, probably me just imagining things, but it interests me that at both 24fps and 48fps it looks odd to me.

Am eagerly awaiting the EE. Watching the EE's right before watching the new LOTR in the cinema was such a big part of my life back then!

Re: the guy complaining about pacing - Unexpected felt to me like a fun adventure. When the dwarves rush the trolls and that music kicks in... I dunno. The almost relaxed nature of the fight just felt right to me. Despite not being in Tolkien's work, it felt Tokien-esque: almost light-hearted in its application, with a rhythm to the choreography like there's a rhythm to the prose of his writing.

I can't properly explain it, but the lack of particularly strong pacing was a strength in the case of this film, at least for me. It was long and dragged on, but never once did it feel boring. It felt magical in a way that the LOTR trilogy never did, in much the same way the LOTR books didn't have the same magical feel of the Hobbit.

The two works have two very different tones, and I like that.
Click to expand...

I was the same. When I saw it in 48fps I was all aw shit this is gonna be disappointing, but everything afterwards was beautiful.
 
S

Sushigod7

Member
JB1981 said:
Finally finished my 2nd viewing of this at home on blu ray. I can't see myself ever sitting down to watch this movie again. There are no scenes that stick with me. I can't even count on one hand the amount of great scenes/images/sequences from FOTR that I could revisit over and over. There is nothing like that in this movie. Nothing memorable, nothing that I can't wait to return to. Well maybe I shouldn't say nothing but I don't understand why this movie, in its current form, exists. Literally nothing happens. It's like The Phantom Menace of the LOTR movies. Actually I think TPM might have been more entertaining.

The magic is gone
Click to expand...

I can see why you might think this but things do happen and this really sets the stage for the next film. Comparing to Fellowship this certainly did not have as much action but I still like the film. I'm on my 3rd viewing and going to go at it again tomorrow I love the settings and man that final few shots and the scenery beautiful.
 
C

Candeldandel

Member
Edmond Dantès;51988497 said:
I'm curious Candeldandel, if all goes well with the next two films and when all is said and done with The Hobbit trilogy. Will it mean more to you than The Lord of the Rings trilogy or will they be on par with each other in your mind?
Click to expand...

In a way... Yes. The Hobbit hit me much harder because I knew the story beforehand. I know it from when I was a kid, and that my mom loved Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and she read the latter to me when I was little. I barely even remember it, but, I know. It meant enough to her to show it to me before I could read it on my own. The fact that we got to share just one of the stories she loved before she passed away makes it ... important. There're a lot of silly, personal reasons I could go on about, but that's the big one.

There's also the personification that takes place. The book primarily lumps the dwarves into one entity (save Thorin). The movie takes each dwarf and gives them a face, an origin, a voice (for the most part; we're only on the first one after all) and a heart. Characterization and atmosphere are big factors for me when it comes to any kind of media. Plot really comes after these (again, personally), and since this plot is so well known and extremely obvious, they can safely suspend it while working on fleshing out the more intimate aspects of the 'players'. It makes up for the lack of women spectacularly :) I haven't read The Silmarillion yet, but I imagine (?) there is more, if not a fair amount of personification in the characters he writes about, something that is very sparse in The Hobbit.

The "slice-of-life" that I've mentioned factors into this greatly. It creates a layer of normality that a lot of fantasy leaves out (this is a big reason why I'm really looking forward to the EE). If there aren't any characters I can directly relate to, there has to be something I can connect with, and the movie does that with Hobbiton, and snippets of Dale and even the dwarves wreaking havoc at Bag End. (Hobbiton is also my favorite part of LotR: the party, the houses, the people, the expressions and comfort.) Action and excitement are only a few of the elements that make something exciting; how are you supposed to feel anything for characters you don't even know? Even if we're not familiar with someone, we know... we'll get to know them in time. That's just so important to me.

As for Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship of the Ring came out when I was in high school, and around the same time as the first Harry Potter film. I was... an enormous Potter fan back in the day. That was where most of my energy was being focused on, so I didn't know what I was getting myself into with LotR, honestly; like I mentioned, I'd only read The Hobbit up until that point. How could I love anything more than Harry Potter? So, I went to see Fellowship with my friends who assured me it would be awesome. Holy shit, it did not disappoint. I couldn't believe how much more it resonated with me than HP. I was on the edge of my seat until the very end. And that last scene. When Frodo and Sam leave the Fellowship and go off on their own... and the crags and Mordor in the distance and I can't... when that faded to black and the credits came up, I threw up my hands and said, "What?!!" I couldn't believe it was ending. How could it end?! I could've sat there for 9 more hours watching without even noticing. At the time, I knew I loved The Hobbit, but The Lord of the Rings told me there was much more that I was missing. It was enlightening.

They may take place in the same world, but they are equally important and entirely different. I love them both. They are two parts of the same love: The Hobbit is heart, and The Lord of the Rings is soul. And since I am driven by my heart, I understand that more, so yes, I think The Hobbit will mean more to me in the end, even if that end is an end with tears.

Apologies for the wall of text. I just... There's a lot to it, sometimes.
 
C

CrunchyFrog

Member
Man they've really got that sneak peek footage on lockdown. I couldn't catch the brief yt upload, and a perusal of the usual "sources" has yielded absolutely nothing. The internet has once again failed me.
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
Candeldandel said:
In a way... Yes. The Hobbit hit me much harder because I knew the story beforehand. I know it from when I was a kid, and that my mom loved Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit, and she read the latter to me when I was little. I barely even remember it, but, I know. It meant enough to her to show it to me before I could read it on my own. The fact that we got to share just one of the stories she loved before she passed away makes it ... important. There're a lot of silly, personal reasons I could go on about, but that's the big one.

There's also the personification that takes place. The book primarily lumps the dwarves into one entity (save Thorin). The movie takes each dwarf and gives them a face, an origin, a voice (for the most part; we're only on the first one after all) and a heart. Characterization and atmosphere are big factors for me when it comes to any kind of media. Plot really comes after these (again, personally), and since this plot is so well known and extremely obvious, they can safely suspend it while working on fleshing out the more intimate aspects of the 'players'. It makes up for the lack of women spectacularly :) I haven't read The Silmarillion yet, but I imagine (?) there is more, if not a fair amount of personification in the characters he writes about, something that is very sparse in The Hobbit.

The "slice-of-life" that I've mentioned factors into this greatly. It creates a layer of normality that a lot of fantasy leaves out (this is a big reason why I'm really looking forward to the EE). If there aren't any characters I can directly relate to, there has to be something I can connect with, and the movie does that with Hobbiton, and snippets of Dale and even the dwarves wreaking havoc at Bag End. (Hobbiton is also my favorite part of LotR: the party, the houses, the people, the expressions and comfort.) Action and excitement are only a few of the elements that make something exciting; how are you supposed to feel anything for characters you don't even know? Even if we're not familiar with someone, we know... we'll get to know them in time. That's just so important to me.

As for Lord of the Rings. The Fellowship of the Ring came out when I was in high school, and around the same time as the first Harry Potter film. I was... an enormous Potter fan back in the day. That was where most of my energy was being focused on, so I didn't know what I was getting myself into with LotR, honestly; like I mentioned, I'd only read The Hobbit up until that point. How could I love anything more than Harry Potter? So, I went to see Fellowship with my friends who assured me it would be awesome. Holy shit, it did not disappoint. I couldn't believe how much more it resonated with me than HP. I was on the edge of my seat until the very end. And that last scene. When Frodo and Sam leave the Fellowship and go off on their own... and the crags and Mordor in the distance and I can't... when that faded to black and the credits came up, I threw up my hands and said, "What?!!" I couldn't believe it was ending. How could it end?! I could've sat there for 9 more hours watching without even noticing. At the time, I knew I loved The Hobbit, but The Lord of the Rings told me there was much more that I was missing. It was enlightening.

They may take place in the same world, but they are equally important and entirely different. I love them both. They are two parts of the same love: The Hobbit is heart, and The Lord of the Rings is soul. And since I am driven by my heart, I understand that more, so yes, I think The Hobbit will mean more to me in the end, even if that end is an end with tears.

Apologies for the wall of text. I just... There's a lot to it, sometimes.
Click to expand...
No need to apologise, Eru knows I've done the same in this and other Tolkien threads. I really appreciate such a heartfelt response. We all have our reasons for holding The Hobbit in high regards in our hearts and minds and there's no evil in sharing just why that is.
 
S

Starsunder

Member
Watched The Hobbit yet again, and goddamn I love this movie. I love the dwarves in this movie, the sense of camaraderie between them. I love the riddles in the dark scene, I love the trolls...everything.


Wait for the next movie is gonna be long and hard.
thats what she said hurr hurr
 
E

Edmond Dantès

Dantès the White
It's intetesting reading through the beginning of this thread and beyond. Many have stopped posting for whatever reason, some have soured on Peter Jackson and the trilogy decision, and others are still in for the long haul with this journey into Middle-earth.
 
F

fredrancour

Member
Dmax3901 said:
I can hear each accompanying piece of music too.

The Uruk horn getting drowned out by chanting as Saruman walks out takes the cake I think.
Click to expand...

It kind of frightens me how well I can hear that Saruman scene inside my head when looking at that pick.

"It would take thousands!"
"Tens of thousands!"
"But my lord, there is no such army!"
HAROOOOOOOOOOOOORCS ORCS ORCS ORCS etc Oh god I've seen these movies too many times I blame tnt for how they used to have a damn-near-monthly weekend of reruns.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

[Breaking News] Peter Jackson is returning to produce the first of the new Middle-earth films [2026]
2 3 4
194
10K
ManaByte replied
I've completed my 20th re-reading of The Lord of the Rings.
2
60
5K
NecrosaroIII replied
  • Locked
Thor Ragnaok adds Jeff Goldblum and Karl Urban, confirms character roles
5 6 7 8 9
434
45K
HeySeuss replied
  • Locked
Thor 3: Ragnarok | Production Thread
13 14 15 16 17
800
142K
Platy replied
  • Locked
NBC & ABC's Fall schedules and new shows for 2016-2017
28
4K
sphagnum replied
Top Bottom