PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit


malfoya
6th Jan 2013, 12:26 AM
I looked through the site and I didn't find any threads about this (in my personal opinion) amazing film. I've already watched it twice. One of them in 3d, which I am not very fond of, though I think Peter Jackson did a brilliant job.

Though I mostly have positive things to say about the film there was one particular thing that I didn't like compare to LOTR. The animated orc, Azog. I find it more scary and realistic when they use the masks and costumes for the orcs. Gollum on the other hand is a perfect animated character, and for me the best scene in the film was when he and Bilbo met for the first time playing the riddle game. A pretty long scene, but I enjoyed every second of it. Andy Serkins did a wonderful job in it!

As for the dwarves I really like how they have made them have each an own personality. I couldn't have imagined 13 Gimlis. That would probably have been a bit boring, and I think the dwarves deserves to come in front and be represented as a more versatile race. My favourites are Kili, Thorin and Balin so far.

What are other people's opinions on the film? Remember to hide spoilers in case someone hasn't seen it or read the book :)

archamedes
14th Jan 2013, 5:19 PM
I enjoyed it, Tolkien writes some amazing fictional literature, However i feel that both the Hobbit and Lord of the rings could have been made to be a lot shorter, if some of the unecessary characters were removed. I assume some of the Tolkien fans will disagree and feel that every character deserved his place. However i felt there was too much

"I am thorin, son of dorin, brother of morin the candle maker, uncle of Borin the holder of the magic quill. You will bet your ass that we will get to meet all of those in great detail later on. But first we are going to meet Greebo, Brother of Stevo, Cousin of...."

maxon
14th Jan 2013, 9:33 PM
Balin is played by Ken Stott - one of our very best actors. He's brilliant. And I suspect little cosmetic work was done on his nose.

rosejasmin56
15th Jan 2013, 10:36 AM
One of the best movie of the 2012 because I've read the book on this movie but I like the movie most..In movie has a lot of graphics which i like most...

ButchSims
15th Jan 2013, 12:50 PM
I enjoyed it, Tolkien writes some amazing fictional literature, However i feel that both the Hobbit and Lord of the rings could have been made to be a lot shorter, if some of the unecessary characters were removed. I assume some of the Tolkien fans will disagree and feel that every character deserved his place. However i felt there was too much

"I am thorin, son of dorin, brother of morin the candle maker, uncle of Borin the holder of the magic quill. You will bet your ass that we will get to meet all of those in great detail later on. But first we are going to meet Greebo, Brother of Stevo, Cousin of...."I think we should count our lucky stars that they DID remove some unnecessary characters from LOTR. But I admit, while I haven't seen the Hobbit yet, I am a bit concerned over what I feel is 'padding" the movie a bit, just to populate the franchise with returning characters. People like Legolas and Galadriel weren't even mentioned in the book. I'm sure it makes some kind of sense to include them, as they WOULD have been present, even if not in the forefront of what was happening, but the Hobbit was only 300 pages long, and was a much simpler story than LOTR. Making multiple movies about just seems to be making it longer just to stretch out the franchise a bit. That said, I'm sure I'll enjoy it.

jeffrompas
15th Jan 2013, 5:28 PM
Actually, they also used History of Middle Earth which is a whopping 12 volume material as reference for the movie and probably to fill some gaps between Hobbit and LOTR.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_History_of_Middle-earth

archamedes
15th Jan 2013, 6:35 PM
Its all about money. Why make one film that grosses big at the box office whe you can make 3 films and triple the profit

Artimis
21st Jan 2013, 10:58 AM
I went to see this flim on new years day and it was awesome. It even changed my opinion over the dwarves, my least favorite fantasy race, I even brought some of the frigunes that you can get for adout 10 from any shop that sells them in england.

malfoya
21st Jan 2013, 6:05 PM
I went to see this flim on new years day and it was awesome. It even changed my opinion over the dwarves, my least favorite fantasy race, I even brought some of the frigunes that you can get for adout 10 from any shop that sells them in england.

I have never been a big fan of the dwarf race in fantasy as well. Mostly due to them all having to look so similar. Chubby with long bears and a bit of an angry look. These dwarves all had their own personality which made them equally interesting as any other race. Kili is so freakin hot! And Thorin is definately the Aragorn of the movies. And it was a pleasure to see Balin that has been mentioned before.

I've recently bought Thorin's key for my keychain. Will definatly look into more replicas to buy from the movies.

pinketamine
21st Jan 2013, 11:42 PM
Its all about money. Why make one film that grosses big at the box office whe you can make 3 films and triple the profit

Maybe because most people wouldn't watch a 9 hour long movie in the cinema.

I watched the film with my boyfriend and we both LOVED it. I really liked LOTR and I think the three films are awesome. The Hobbit didn't disappoint me, not even a bit. It might be a little more "fairytale-ish" than LOTR movies, but it is a great film, with great music, awesome characterization... I loved it.

archamedes
22nd Jan 2013, 7:20 PM
Maybe because most people wouldn't watch a 9 hour long movie in the cinema.

I watched the film with my boyfriend and we both LOVED it. I really liked LOTR and I think the three films are awesome. The Hobbit didn't disappoint me, not even a bit. It might be a little more "fairytale-ish" than LOTR movies, but it is a great film, with great music, awesome characterization... I loved it.

but the film shouldn't be 9 hours long. the hobbit book was only 300 pages long and they could easily fit that into 2 hours. they only chose to drag it out over 9 hours because they can make more money from 3 films instead of one

pinketamine
22nd Jan 2013, 8:32 PM
Well, the thing is really easy then. People who don't like the film, don't got to see it and don't give their money to them.
Honestly, it bothers me so much when a 300 pages book gets summarized in 1 hour and a half or 2 hours because you lose SO MUCH. It happened it some Harry Potter movies and I hate that, I prefer to see everything with great detail instead.
I guess it is a matter of preference but... movies are an industry and people who make them want to get money from it, it is their job, I don't see anything wrong with that in the beginning.

PharaohHound
23rd Jan 2013, 12:10 PM
I won't comment on the story or length, because the film was fairly "meh" for me (loved Martin Freeman, though.) But did anyone else see it in 48FPS? I really, really liked the higher framerate. It takes some getting used to, but it made the action scenes and panning shots look buttery smooth. I really hope it catches on.

pinketamine
23rd Jan 2013, 10:13 PM
I won't comment on the story or length, because the film was fairly "meh" for me (loved Martin Freeman, though.) But did anyone else see it in 48FPS? I really, really liked the higher framerate. It takes some getting used to, but it made the action scenes and panning shots look buttery smooth. I really hope it catches on.

I saw it in 48 fps, and I really hope they do more films in that format. It is really good and involving, perfect for action scenes.