• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

The Hobbit

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Also I disliked the overuse of CGI, which is such a cliche gripe, but applicable here. Why was Azog ENTIRELY CGI based exactly? He looked like an undercooked gingerbread man with scars on.

yes, someone ate his gumdrop buttons as a baby, and he never was quite the same after.

I'm extremely interested in how they will handle Smaug. In Tolkein's world dragons are highly intelligent creatures who don't really ally to anyone. They are a bit 'voice of Saruman' as well in their ability to mislead and employ double-speak. Not to mention hypnotise people, although this last point is somewhat questionable given that Tolkein's idea of magic is....quite subtle and he rarely directly mentions the term or even gives much description of spells apart from a few Gandalf employs.

Gandalf uses more conventional magic early in The Hobbit, but as his writing progresses into LotR and other tales, you see him using magic more as part of something's "essence" rather than as a power that can be wielded and controlled as some kind of natural force like the conventional idea of magic. This is something Jackson did not really port into his movies; his wizards and spellcasters all seem to be more like RPG spellcasters and IMO it cheapened it enough that I just didn't enjoy that change.

In actuality, Gandalf and Saurman were Maiar (lesser angels) and Sauron I think was a major Maiar, the right-hand of Morgoth who was a Valar (the highest level of supernatural being under Illuvatar = God, to whom Illuvatar handed off overseeing of the earth). The Balrogs were also Maiar -- just dark or fallen ones. Which is why Gandalf and Durin's Bane were so equally matched. But it wasn't really conventional magic they were wielding, even if they had that power; it was one force of being pitted against another force of being ... like pitting fire against water and the stronger nature will win. The same with the High Elves -- they burned brightly, as part of the eternal race, and had their own inner force/nature that could be pitted against others.

Anyway, Dragons are rather similar. They are a force with their own strength of will and essence that easily dominates over mortal creatures. it's possible that they might have originated as Maiar themselves and are that powerful on their own.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
yes, someone ate his gumdrop buttons as a baby, and he never was quite the same after.



Gandalf uses more conventional magic early in The Hobbit, but as his writing progresses into LotR and other tales, you see him using magic more as part of something's "essence" rather than as a power that can be wielded and controlled as some kind of natural force like the conventional idea of magic. This is something Jackson did not really port into his movies; his wizards and spellcasters all seem to be more like RPG spellcasters and IMO it cheapened it enough that I just didn't enjoy that change.

In actuality, Gandalf and Saurman were Maiar (lesser angels) and Sauron I think was a major Maiar, the right-hand of Morgoth who was a Valar (the highest level of supernatural being under Illuvatar = God, to whom Illuvatar handed off overseeing of the earth). The Balrogs were also Maiar -- just dark or fallen ones. Which is why Gandalf and Durin's Bane were so equally matched. But it wasn't really conventional magic they were wielding, even if they had that power; it was one force of being pitted against another force of being ... like pitting fire against water and the stronger nature will win. The same with the High Elves -- they burned brightly, as part of the eternal race, and had their own inner force/nature that could be pitted against others.

Anyway, Dragons are rather similar. They are a force with their own strength of will and essence that easily dominates over mortal creatures. it's possible that they might have originated as Maiar themselves and are that powerful on their own.

Oh yeah I agree completely. In fact I was reading up on Sauron again because by the Third Age he was completely gone into this...parroting of Melkor and actually he is more interesting than that as a character, which is revealed in the Silmarillian and Unfinished Tales.

I always found it interesting that:
"The evils of the world were not at first in the great Theme, but entered with the discords of Melkor." However, "Sauron was not a beginner of discord; and he probably knew more of the Music than did Melkor, whose mind had always been filled with his own plans and devices."

Also good point on mentioning the Maiar and how Sauron was of a, for want of a better term, higher level than those of the Istari. Even though many who read the Silmarillian and Unfinished Tales seemed to come to the conclusion that Gandalf, for example, was his equal. But there were restrictions on what they could do and I think it is important to remember why.

After all, they were there to guide, influence and motivate. But not to dominate or lead in a structured fashion.

You are right about PJ's interpretation of the spellcasting. I also thought the same, unfortunately in this modern era of popular culture, there is a lot of appeal made to those who get off on big whooshy effects.
 
R

Riva

Guest
I loved it. I was 1st disappointed that the book was turned (intended to be turned in to) three movies.

Unlike the LOTR the hobbit isn't that long but then again it does have quite a lot of plot twists that could be turned in to lengthy videos I realized after watching the movie. It only goes to show that LOTRs could have been turned in to five movies - though I wouldn't have done so if I was to make the movie myself.

Besides I am never a complainer. I like to enjoy things.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Also good point on mentioning the Maiar and how Sauron was of a, for want of a better term, higher level than those of the Istari. Even though many who read the Silmarillian and Unfinished Tales seemed to come to the conclusion that Gandalf, for example, was his equal. But there were restrictions on what they could do and I think it is important to remember why.

hard to tell. I mean, if Gandalf were his equal, you'd think the war would be a waste of time. And why not just send in other Maiar to pull an Avengers on Sauron and drag him off? But there was the issue about not wanting to interfere and to let the mortals conduct their own affairs.

Olorin (Gandalf) was interesting, from what I recall, while Saruman was eager for the chance to go to Middle-Earth and had no concerns about his own competency, Olorin was far more humble and tried to refuse the task, feeling he was not capable. In a way he showed far more maturity, as well as a bent that was not towards power such as Saruman did. Which is probably also why he could be trusted with Narya, the ring of fire. I think Gandalf did a good job at not dominating mortals but simply presenting them with choices and aiding them. It's also why a domineerer like Saruman called Gandalf an old fool and a meddler (because he worked behind the scenes rather than more overtly).
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
Also I disliked the overuse of CGI, which is such a cliche gripe, but applicable here. Why was Azog ENTIRELY CGI based exactly? He looked like an undercooked gingerbread man with scars on.

Really? I thought that was a HUGE improvement. He actually looked natural and formidable, unlike a lot of the orcs (bent over people in masks and make-up) from the LOTR films.

If he looked like "an undercooked gingerbread man with scars on," what makes you think that it's the fault of "CGI" in general and not the artists responsible for his concept and execution, which can be done poorly or well, like anything else? Sorry, I just don't think that the snobbery some people display against CGI is justified. It just kinda strikes me as a fashionable philistinism.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Really? I thought that was a HUGE improvement. He actually looked natural and formidable, unlike a lot of the orcs (bent over people in masks and make-up) from the LOTR films.

If he looked like "an undercooked gingerbread man with scars on," what makes you think that it's the fault of "CGI" in general and not the artists responsible for his concept and execution, which can be done poorly or well, like anything else? Sorry, I just don't think that the snobbery some people display against CGI is justified. It just kinda strikes me as a fashionable philistinism.

I agree actually, at least about snobbery towards CGI. I hold no such bias, merely that in this instance it was used a great deal and in high resolution it becomes very jarring and obvious.

They used it well enough in the past three films and the technology continues to advance.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I agree actually, at least about snobbery towards CGI. I hold no such bias, merely that in this instance it was used a great deal and in high resolution it becomes very jarring and obvious.

They used it well enough in the past three films and the technology continues to advance.

I guess I'm a utilitarian, because I have no issues with tech being used except in accordance with what it is trying to accomplish. If 3D makes sense and is utilized well in a movie (like Hugo), then it should be used. If it makes sense for the camera angle to be able to go to impossible places, then use it.

If CGI can be used to accomplish something that could not be accomplished otherwise or to accomplish it better (I think overall my favorite Jackson CGI characters are Gollum and Kong -- Kong especially seemed to be done very very well, to create a giant ape with a distinct personality and exquisite responses, I felt he was real), then use it.

But then we get stuff like the disaster in "The Polar Express," where the characters didn't look quite human but were somehow supposed to connect naturally with a children's audience, or tech being used spuriously without a lot of skill and forethought or taking the place of decent characterization and story.

Everything has its purpose, but I think it all has to be submitted to the vision of the film and the purpose it is hoping to accomplish rather than just being "because we can." That's the only restriction I think I would personally place on tech.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
The Polar Express was Tom Hanks' old-man wet dream over "new, shiny motion capcha!"
 

Owlesque

New member
Joined
Dec 17, 2010
Messages
416
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I thoroughly enjoyed it and plan to go see it in 3D HFR. McKellen and Freeman in particular were exceptional.

To be honest, I never particularly liked the book (it was assigned reading in grade school, though I have read it a couple of times since) with the exception of Gandalf and Smaug. I like to treat the Middle Earth films as completely separate entities - I adore the books they were adapted from, but the films have their merits as well and I've long since stopped expecting them to be directly comparable (for example, Faramir is one of my favourite characters in the books, but also in the films, but for completely different reasons because they essentially butchered his character from the novel).

The recurring "misty mountains" musical theme was brilliant, as is the rest of the score by Shore, but its use in the film was a bit questionable (snippets taken directly from the LotR films? wtf was with the terribly misplaced music used for Thorin's face-off with Azog?).

I thought the eagles were animated far better than in LotR, anatomically-speaking, which was nice (though again as in every other cinematic representation of eagles, they used Red-tailed Hawk calls). The riddle scene was well done if a little too brightly lit. I wasn't too bothered by the pace except in the goblin escape scene, which felt too drawn out and a bit like something out of Indiana Jones.

My biggest complaint is probably the portrayal of Radagast - while we are given comparatively little information about him than the other Istari, I thought it was a bit ridiculous. I can (maybe) deal with the rabbit sled, but the bird feces? It seemed a bit shameful for a Maiar even though we are to understand that he was eccentric and more interested in the affairs of the earth than the ruling races.

I'm looking forward to how they deal with Smaug in the next films, especially musically.
 

DaniaWania

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
42
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
749
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
The Hobbit was a waste of 3 hours and $10.

If they think I will go on watching the sequels, they have another thing coming. I am so upset about it.

It was stretched out longer than it needed to be.. pacing just very wrong.

They are being very GREEDY like the harry potter and twilight folk, splitting up the last book to roll in extra cash. So 2-3 shitty movies instead of one EPIC movie.

So.. the hobbit series will NOT be in my limited bluray collection... nor will I watch the movie again.



The only scene which I thoroughly enjoyed was the dwarf song... wow. So very well done. It was just beautiful.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Well, I felt like the two-parter of Harry Potter was actually useful, and the movies actually rated pretty high on the critics list (especially the second, with the first one accepted as the setup for the second).

But I agree about Twilight. And I heard recently that they're breaking up the third hunger games book into two movies for a total of four movies for that series... lame. I didn't even think the first one was that memorable, and the books themselves get worse as they go.
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
Well, I felt like the two-parter of Harry Potter was actually useful, and the movies actually rated pretty high on the critics list (especially the second, with the first one accepted as the setup for the second).

But I agree about Twilight. And I heard recently that they're breaking up the third hunger games book into two movies for a total of four movies for that series... lame. I didn't even think the first one was that memorable, and the books themselves get worse as they go.

Harry Potter was the only one of these "split the book" deals that ever made sense. I almost wish they hadn't done it and created a subpar movie instead, since it would still have made oodles of money... But it wouldn't have encouraged the scourge known as Twilight to follow suit. Or the Hobbit... ugh.
 

DaniaWania

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2013
Messages
42
MBTI Type
ENFP
Enneagram
749
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Well, I felt like the two-parter of Harry Potter was actually useful, and the movies actually rated pretty high on the critics list (especially the second, with the first one accepted as the setup for the second).

But I agree about Twilight. And I heard recently that they're breaking up the third hunger games book into two movies for a total of four movies for that series... lame. I didn't even think the first one was that memorable, and the books themselves get worse as they go.

At least some one sees the trend here.

And I actually wasnt a fan of the Harry Potter movies.. period. I just watched them just cuz I was a fan of the books. I found movie 6 and 7 rather boring... yawn. I guess I am weird.
 

Totenkindly

@.~*virinaĉo*~.@
Joined
Apr 19, 2007
Messages
50,187
MBTI Type
BELF
Enneagram
594
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Harry Potter was the only one of these "split the book" deals that ever made sense. I almost wish they hadn't done it and created a subpar movie instead, since it would still have made oodles of money... But it wouldn't have encouraged the scourge known as Twilight to follow suit. Or the Hobbit... ugh.

"And now: Pat the Bunny, an 8-part sprawling epic in 3D and super-hi 96FPS resolution, with super smellovision, free popcorn, with an experience built into every chair! DON'T MISS IT! DON'T MISS ANY EIGHT PARTS OF IT!"
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Just got back from seeing it.

Not a disappointment per se, but, uh...yeah. It pisses in the face of Tolkien. In fact, the only thing this movie really has going for it is the "Riddles In The Dark" sequence. Everything else was too drawn out. The Hobbit is a short story. There was no reason to extend this to three movies. It is an absolutely shameless cash grab and my respect for Jackson went out the window with that decision.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Travel to mountain, kill dragon, fight army of orcs, return home.
What's so goddamn difficult about that? Two movie plot at most.

And WTF was up with that Radagast guy? He's the Jar Jar Binks of Middle-Earth.
I hope some trolls find him and rip off his arms and leave him to die in a ditch somewhere.

I generally agree with this. I saw it yesterday (yep... late to the game as usual), and unfortunately think it was a total waste of my money. Beyond it being mostly about stuff that wasn't even in the book (and that retarded white orc... arg), I don't think it was very well done. Too much of the drama factor, and I thought they were trying to tie it way too much to the LOTR movies, what with the same music, the same sequencing, etc. blah. I'm not going to spend money on the other two.

(I actually really really liked the LOTR movies, fwiw; with them, at least the artistic liberties taken were relatively minor in the grand scheme (imo). In this movie, it's like they threw out The Hobbit and asked their script-writers to come up with lots of made-up scenes to make it more 'dramatic', with, uh, yeah, you know, we have to do the mountain thing too, but that's not that important.... I just really disliked this one. Total sellout at this point- agree re. Jackson)
 

Poindexter Arachnid

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 16, 2011
Messages
1,232
MBTI Type
ISTP
I liked LOVED LOTR, too.
That was before Jackson's ass fat went to his head.

Frankly, I've no desire to see the follow-ups.

Crap.
 
Top