I answered it in my previous post with the spoiler thing. I'll just put it here though since people are talking about the entire movie anyways. In the book its because men of the area don't like them and try to shoot them with bows and arrows because they steal their sheep. So in the book they took them as far as they could go without endangering themselves.Spoilers!
Just saw it 2d 24fps. Pretty good movie. Almost made me tear up with the first scene seeing Bilbo and being back in Middle Earth. Could have done without the "that's what bilbo hates" song. And I couldn't stand how so much action was progressed by some ridiculous "comedic" falling of the entire gang down some ridiculous thing. Oh look, everyone is falling off rocks onto other rocks because there is big rock monsters, oh wait, they're falling through rocks now down a chute, oh wait, now the whole gang is falling between swinging wood platforms, oh look the platform is now surfing down the cave, oh look, they're in trees, and the trees are all falling into each other and they're swinging around in them. SIGH.
Besides the goofiness of some it, the movie was pretty dang good. I thought most people did great jobs. Some parts did feel cheap, like the CGI of the guy with the rabbit sled, in some scenes it just looked retarded. I didn't have a problem with the troll scene. From a story telling point of view the thing with the necromancer was just odd, so it just was kind of left out their hanging.
Of course, again I have to ask, why didn't the birds just fly them all the way to the mountain? And why didn't Gandalf just summon the birds in Fellowship and fly Frodo all the way to Mordor?
Movie looked good though. Peter Jackson's Middle Earth is beautiful as always, and makes me want to redo my backyard to look like RivendaleGood style. I didn't see Evangeline Lily or Legolas. I guess they're in the other movies?
The Hobbit
- Thread starter Feien
- Start date
-
Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!
Go here and give us your nominations!Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
Lithose
Buzzfeed Editor
- 25,946
- 113,036
And for a long time, until he started really revising the book--that's actually all it was. It wasn't until he had the first draft done of the Hobbit and went back and decided to rewrite a bunch of things because he loved the world so much (And then write everything else) that he changed it from a "magic ring", which is still very powerful in his world, to "The One Ring". So if Jackson played down it's importance, that's great--that's precisely how it was written.
Uh... they hit you over the head with a sledge hammer with the Blade of Morgul Rhadagast found. A blade that doesn't belong in the land of the living. The same type of blade that pierced Frodo at Weathertop. A blade belonging to a ringwraith.
Isn't that how a nickname would come to life though? I thought Balin's retelling of the seige of Moria was the strongest part of the entire movie.
Not only did I think it was weak, but I didn't even notice it until the fight against the Defiler when he rose off the tree and all the sudden it was there. I said out loud.. Wait, where did he get the shield from now!?
Of course, within the lore of middle-earth, the appearance of a morgul-blade is essentially meaningless since the Nazgul had been active in middle-earth affairs since ~1300 T.A. The Witch-King over the next 1500 years founds the kingdom of Angmar, conquers the kingdoms of Arthedain, Rhudaur, and Cardolan. He then fights a series of battles with Gondor, temporarily loses Angmar. He regroups, assembles the rest of the Nazgul and conquers Minas Ithil in Mordor. He then proceeds to challenge and slay the last King of Gondor in single combat during the siege of Minas Tirith and is only stopped from conquering Gondor by Gandalf himself. Later, the 11th steward of Gondor would die from wounds sustained from a morgul-blade. I haven't seen the movie so perhaps the morgul-blade means more within its context but from the books standpoint, it would mean very little.Uh... they hit you over the head with a sledge hammer with the Blade of Morgul Rhadagast found. A blade that doesn't belong in the land of the living. The same type of blade that pierced Frodo at Weathertop. A blade belonging to a ringwraith.
Hateyou
Not Great, Not Terrible
- 16,632
- 43,268
Himeo
Vyemm Raider
- 3,263
- 2,802
If you want slavish devotion to the source material, watch the Lord of the Rings trilogy. The Hobbit is a money grab with generous padding and alterations by Peter Jackson. And you know what? I'm fine with that. It's fun.
The Lord of the Rings movie deviates quite a bit from the source material and does take some liberties. It does setup the back story nicely at the beginning. A lot of what Mimrswell is discussing is covered more in depth in the Silmarillion. It really answers a ton of questions in regards to the lore and fills out the holes left in Lord of the Rings. In the movie Saruman addresses the Morgul blade pretty much identically to what you are saying, which should amuse you, like was discussed in the LOTR books when Gandalf discusses his travels with Aragorn and finding Smeagol.
I liked the way The White Council was represented in the movie.
I agree it's a total money grab, especially making it into three movies, but as I really enjoyed the first one I'm cool with that and will definitely watch the next two. I've been a Tolkien nut since I was a little kid...
I liked the way The White Council was represented in the movie.
I agree it's a total money grab, especially making it into three movies, but as I really enjoyed the first one I'm cool with that and will definitely watch the next two. I've been a Tolkien nut since I was a little kid...
Kirun
Buzzfeed Editor
- 19,235
- 15,625
Totally agree. Especially about the elves and panoramic shots being some of the only things that looked decent. HFR totally ruined it for me as well. I disagree on the actions scenes, though. I think those were much improved with HFR and I'd like to see movies use the tech for them in the future. However, the HFR just made everything look like I was standing right there beside the director, watching a bunch of LARPers. The 48FPS made thingstoophoto-realistic and I just couldn't stand how "fake" looking everything was. Half the time you could tell that the actors were just running around on sets/sound stages.
Forgot to mention the the 3d. It was pretty meh though the star trek preview they should prior to the hobbit was amazing. I guess the pallet of a medieval environment just doesn't lend itself to the correct colors one needs to create a good sense of depth in 3d. That being said I am going to watch the film again this time in HFR since my local theater did not have it available.
Meaningless? The blade was found all the way south in Dol Guldur, and Mirkwood forest is all kinds of fucked up. The white council should rightly be concerned, which is exactly why Saruman misdirects the entire issue, including Thorin's quest on Smaug. Saurman has already turned heel at this point through his study of the one ring, he wants it for himself.
quoted from a bigger nerd
I bolded the year the events of The Hobbit take place.
Noodleface
A Mod Real Quick
- 38,271
- 15,093
So far I don't think anyone here has said the movie was bad, yet it stands strong at 65% on RT. Fuck those critics. And they all try to use some lame one-liner to justify their review.
A bigger fuck you goes to the one critic I saw who wrote "The Hobbit came out this week, did we really need this movie?" Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
A bigger fuck you goes to the one critic I saw who wrote "The Hobbit came out this week, did we really need this movie?" Go fuck yourself you fucking fuck.
nuday
Golden Squire
- 203
- 8
I wasn't a fan of the HFR at all until the first real action scenes started to play out. I really fucking love the way the action looked, but otherwise I found myself distracted quite a lot by how fake most of the scenes looked. I think that HFR might be much better suited to a darker movie, because I seemed to notice it much more when the scene was bright.
the best way to describe this movie is that while it's certainly good (especially in terms of the absolute shit hollywood throws up every weekend), the best parts of the hobbit story could've been done much better, from the trolls to the goblin king to riddles. all of these scenes could've been much, much more epic than they were portrayed here. i don't know if jackson felt these scenes were how he envisioned them, or if he was rushed, or if he just didn't care since it's mostly a money grab, but yeah, that's the best way to describe.
- 6,338
- 7,144
I felt "money grab" too. A lot of CGI looked bad, some things looked faker than LOTR. Felt cheaper all over.
Really? I thought the CGI looked superior to LOTR with the exception of Azog (who knew we'd be seeing an engineer in the hobbit). But honestly I never thought much of the CGI from the first film. All of Jackson's CGI monsters tend to move with a certain cartoon quality, like his animators can't be bothered to animate real motions. Shit just zooms across the screen at warp speed kinda like a Disney movie, the only exception being gollum. I would love to have seen some animatronic puppets in these movies.