test

Welcome to Talk Chelsea

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.

Eviltwinz93

The Hobbit

Started by Eviltwinz93,

244 posts in this topic
No, it's a good film but not on the LOTR's level. This isn't purely to do with the movie, because it is fairly true to the book, you have to remember the Hobbit was a children's book whereas LOTR wasn't. Adding to that the Hobbit is a small book whereas the Lord of the Rings book(s) are huge. LOTR is one of the, if not the greatest trilogies of all time, reaching that leaving was realistically never going to be possible. The first 40 mins-ish of the Hobbit feel dragged but it did kick off. The next films (looking forward too) are setup perfectly and will probably be better. It's certainly worth a watch but don't go in there expecting a flawless LOTR.

If you want to know read this:

Yes they have, it was inevitable though bearing in mind they've made a trilogy out of a such a small book+bit from appendices and silmarillion

How much does it follow the book? I've read it some time ago, sadly I've forgotten quite a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Expectations were sky high but I wasn't disappointed, quite the opposite really. Hands down the best movie of 2012.

Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, the scene between him and Gollum was awesome!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Expectations were sky high but I wasn't disappointed, quite the opposite really. Hands down the best movie of 2012.

Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, the scene between him and Gollum was awesome!

I can't say I was disappointed because the Hobbit as a story compared to LOTR is quite lighthearted. The film was good but I can't help but compare it with LOTR. But, as I have mentioned, I believe the next movie will probably be better. Anyhow. I didn't expect a LOTR, I only went in hoping for it, but yes I agree that scene with Gollum was a highlight.

How much does it follow the book? I've read it some time ago, sadly I've forgotten quite a bit...

I also haven't book in ages but here's a few things I noticed that changed:

Radagast actually has a role in the film, he was only mentioned as one of the five wizards in the book. Frodo's conversation with Bilbo wasn't in the book. Also Azog actually survives the war between the dwarves and orcs unlike in the book where he died. Thorin's character also seems slightly different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agreed, I can't say I was disappointed because the Hobbit as a story compared to LOTR is quite lighthearted. The film was good but I can't help but compare it with LOTR, but as I mentioned, I believe the next movie will probably be better. Anyhow. I Didn't expect a lotr, I only went in hoping for it, but yes I agree that scene with Gollum was a highlight.

I also haven't book in ages but here's a few things I noticed that changed:

Radagast actually has a role in the film, he was only mentioned as one of the five wizards in the book. Frodo's conversation with Bilbo wasn't in the book. Also Azog actually survives the war between the dwarves and orcs unlike in the book where he died. Thorin's character also seems slightly different.

Shit it's been quite a while since names like Radagast and Azog don't mean shit to me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
seriuosly??? but that would mean introducing characters like "radagast the brown" and re-introducing saruman. if they do show it then its gonna be fucking epic... also i would like to see how he shows mirkwood. tolkein's and jackson's fangorn was almost the same but something as dark as mirkwood and the scenes with the spiders are going to be a big challennge.

Absolutely. Expect the Battle of Mirkwood (with the White Council of Elrond, Glorfindel, Galadriel, Thranduil and the High Elves against the Witch-King and the other eight Nazgul, and of course Sauron the Necromancer of Dol-Guldor) and the Battle of the Five Armies as the epic conclusion to this trilogy. If you thought the Siege of Minas Tirith and the Pelennor in The Return of the King was epic, this will blow you away. Get ready to see thousands of axe-swinging Dwarves knock the fuck out of millions of Goblins.

As for the film itself - absolutely fantastic. Brilliantly paced and the perfect cast. Immediately fell in love with characters like Balin and Radagast, and you come to care for Bofur (James Nesbitt) come the end of the film as well. Martin Freeman was excellent as Bilbo, Thorin was ice-cool and perfectly portrayed as well. Gollum steals the show, naturally. Fan-boy cameos from Frodo, Elrond and Saruman make for great viewing, and Cate Blanchett steals her only scene in typical fashion. Ian McKellan even better in this than in the original trilogy, too. Just fantastic. The villains were brilliantly done; the Goblin King was grotesquely beautiful and Azog makes for a great foe. He's definitely being billed as the major secondary antagonist the same way the Witch-King was in Return.

9/10.

didierforever likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@,

I didnt like the split of Hobbit exactly because of Peter Jackson`s introduction of Silmarillion. I think it is to dry to make it into the big screens, he will have to put too many of his own conclusions (which might not be good for everyone). There is no need for a 9 hour story. He could have easily done it in 6hrs (even if he will introduce a lot of things outside The Hobbit). Peter is adding too many unnecessary scenes to be able to prolong the film (super slow start, dwarves singing, troll campfire and Gandalf/Sauraman meeting, for instance), where he could put it on a special DVD or anything else. The fact his movies are 3hr long really scares the general public (I hear a lot of people complaining) and to do it without justice is even worse (at least LOTR had a logical expalnation for it). Beyond that, he cant quite replicate the magical and intensity experience of LOTR, so it can get a bit boring for non-fans in the course of these 3hrs. In my opinioon, Jackson does not have the authority to play with Tolkien`s World the way he is doing. He will create too many storylines out of his own head (Gandalf, for instance) and stupid scenes to fill up time. People (me included) might just absolutely fall in love with him and with this new triology, but I dont agree he has the right do it. Stick withThe Hobbit + a few more explanations and storylines from other books and it would be a homerun, try to do too much together and it might fail immensily.

Also, did you watch it in 48fps? I did and I needed time to adjust, I didnt like the vibrant colours caused by the overuse of CGI (remeber how all the orcs were real actors in make up? Well, goodbye to that) and Rivendell looks like a Barbie`s Castle.

However, the cast is out of this world, specially Thorin and Bilbo! The pace is, like always, fantastic and the soundtrack is excellent (not LOTR level though). I wont even comment on the special effects, it is not fair (one of the best I have seen). Oh, I wont comment either on the brilliant scene with Smeagol!

One thing I should add, if you didnt read the book, you wont feel as conected to the characters as you did with the Fellowship.

With that being said, I wont lie that I loved the movie and I would watch it again.

In comparisson with LOTR: 7/10, in comparisson with other movies: 8.5/10.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must say, I was a geek that hung out @ the library. I read The Hobbit like 3 times when I young lad. So every film about Tolkien's realm for me (I believe they started since the '70s) have been freakin' awesome. No I don't watch these movies as a critic. I watch them as a fan & for me my favorite moment was the Trolls campfire. That shit had me Laughing out very Loud. Especially when Bilbo got blasted w/ snot :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I must say, I was a geek that hung out @ the library. I read The Hobbit like 3 times when I young lad. So every film about Tolkien's realm for me (I believe they started since the '70s) have been freakin' awesome. No I don't watch these movies as a critic. I watch them as a fan & for me my favorite moment was the Trolls campfire. That shit had me Laughing out very Loud. Especially when Bilbo got blasted w/ snot :D

I laughed very hard as well and I have read it more than 10 times (I am not exagerating).

What I was saying is that there is no need for such long scenes, it makes the movie too long for unnecessary reasons. You can easily make a good dwarves and troll scene in half the time and still be as good (or even better). A lot of parts are streched for no reason, it even downgrades its objectiviness and quality.

There is no need to be blind fans. We leave that to Justin Bierbers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If this happens 70 years before LOTR, then how could Frodo have been in there? He should have been like 90 in LOTR, but he looked 20. Gandalf should have been dead too, because as far as I've seen he looks just as old as in LOTR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If this happens 70 years before LOTR, then how could Frodo have been in there? He should have been like 90 in LOTR, but he looked 20. Gandalf should have been dead too, because as far as I've seen he looks just as old as in LOTR.

LOL, NOOOOO!

When Frodo is talking to his uncle, they are right before the beginning of LOTR 1 (remeber, at the very first scene, that Frodo was reading a book in the forest and Gandalf came and they even talked about him being late?). They are even talking about the party and everything.

Then, Bilbo begins writing his book about his adventure and you are taken back 60 years. Only then The Hobbit really begins...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL, NOOOOO!

When Frodo is talking to his uncle, they are right before the beginning of LOTR 1 (remeber, at the very first scene, that Frodo was reading a book in the forest in Gandalf came and they even talked about him being late?). They are even talking about the party and everything.

Then, Bilbo begins writing his book about his adventure and you are taken back 60 years. Only then The Hobbit really begins...

But what about Gandalf?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean?

How come he looks same age in The Hobbit and LOTR? If the time difference is 60-70 years he should have been dead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How come he looks same age in The Hobbit and LOTR? If the time difference is 60-70 years he should have been dead.

LOL

In Middle-Earth, only humans have stupid short lives!

Orcs are imortal (until someone kills it), Elfs are imortal when at their country (until someone kills them or until the world isnt covered by dark forces), Dwarves live good couple hundred years, Hobbits live more than one hundred years and Wizards live a lot (300-400 years or so).

Gandalf being the same old looking guy for 60-70 years isnt that atrocious!

manpe likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL

In Middle-Earth, only humans have stupid short lives!

Orcs are imortal (until someone kill it), Elfs are imortal (until someone kills them or until the World isnt covered by dark forces), Dwarves live good couple hundred years, Hobbits live more than one hundred years and Wizards live a lot (300-400 years or so).

Gandalf being the same old looking guy for 60-70 years isnt that atrocious!

So Gandalf isn't a human, he's a monster? And they can't be immortal if they can be killed, wtf :carlo: The whole definition of immortality is that one can never die.

didierforever likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Gandalf isn't a human, he's a monster? And they can't be immortal if they can be killed, wtf :carlo: The whole definition of immortality is that one can never die.

LMAO

You get the idea manpe, I am not very good at explaining immortality or how long creatures (see, not monsters) live.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what is this middle earth? The core? It must be hot as hell there, though I've never seen them swimming in magma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And what is this middle earth? The core? It must be hot as hell there, though I've never seen them swimming in magma.

bro, you need to pick up a copy of The Hobbit. It's all explained in the books.

Rmpr likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bro, you need to pick up a copy of The Hobbit. It's all explained in the books.

I seriously think he is joking...

Play along!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.