The Hobbit

[Rmpr 8,977]

@,

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.

[robdog 2,084]

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

[Rmpr 8,977]

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

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...

[manpe 10,861]

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.

[Rmpr 8,977]

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...

[manpe 10,861]

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?

[Rmpr 8,977]

But what about Gandalf?

What do you mean?

[manpe 10,861]

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.

[Rmpr 8,977]

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 10,861]

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 The whole definition of immortality is that one can never die.

[Rmpr 8,977]

So Gandalf isn't a human, he's a monster? And they can't be immortal if they can be killed, wtf 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.

[manpe 10,861]

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

[robdog 2,084]

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 8,977]

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!

[manpe 10,861]

I seriously think he is joking...

Play along!

Are you trying to discredit my seriousity?