P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Meesa thinkin that would be a terrrrrible idea.
Meesa thinkin that would be a terrrrrible idea.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Who has seen the Hobbit?
- Thread starter Siouxfaninseattle
- Start date
rufus
rock and roller
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Just got back from Smaug. I thought it was excellent. Maybe not as compelling as LOTR was, but still very good, and a good time at the theater. So loved the dwarf barrel of Orc death, with Legolas and Tauriel close behind slinging arrows right and left.
Just got back from Smaug. I thought it was excellent. Maybe not as compelling as LOTR was, but still very good, and a good time at the theater. So loved the dwarf barrel of Orc death, with Legolas and Tauriel close behind slinging arrows right and left.
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
yes, but in the book, most of the Battle of Five Armies took place while Bilbo was unconsious, and so there is very little description of any battle scenes. The third movie will probably devote half its running length to that battle, which took about two paragraphs in the book.
I haven't seen either Hobbit movie. Probably won't unless I can get the (now adult) children to manage the excerpted version for me (as they watch the DVDs to various movies on home visits, they will skip the dull parts. Revenge of the Sith really skips along that way, for example, the entire movie is about 20 minutes in their hands!). They have an LOTR version in which they only watch the battle scenes, for example.
Generally I liked most of LOTR (except for the excrutiating end of the final movie, or should I say the final three endings?? ych). I didn't miss the Old Forest / Tom Bombadil / barrow downs part at all, for example. and I really liked the way they replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, that was a master stroke.
nor did I miss the "Scouring of the Shire" either.
Funny, they did a good job of slimming down LOTR to form a nice coherent narrative then bloat up The Hobbit with all sorts of extraneous nonsense.
To me the funniest part of the Hobbit is having the actors who played Sherlock and Watson now playing Smaug and Bilbo. It's a bit jarring on the trailers to hear those voices in these new roles.
yes, but in the book, most of the Battle of Five Armies took place while Bilbo was unconsious, and so there is very little description of any battle scenes. The third movie will probably devote half its running length to that battle, which took about two paragraphs in the book.
I haven't seen either Hobbit movie. Probably won't unless I can get the (now adult) children to manage the excerpted version for me (as they watch the DVDs to various movies on home visits, they will skip the dull parts. Revenge of the Sith really skips along that way, for example, the entire movie is about 20 minutes in their hands!). They have an LOTR version in which they only watch the battle scenes, for example.
Generally I liked most of LOTR (except for the excrutiating end of the final movie, or should I say the final three endings?? ych). I didn't miss the Old Forest / Tom Bombadil / barrow downs part at all, for example. and I really liked the way they replaced Glorfindel with Arwen, that was a master stroke.
nor did I miss the "Scouring of the Shire" either.
Funny, they did a good job of slimming down LOTR to form a nice coherent narrative then bloat up The Hobbit with all sorts of extraneous nonsense.
To me the funniest part of the Hobbit is having the actors who played Sherlock and Watson now playing Smaug and Bilbo. It's a bit jarring on the trailers to hear those voices in these new roles.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Nigel Rathbone is in the movie!?!?
Nigel Rathbone is in the movie!?!?
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Benedict Cumberbatch played Sherlock.
<strike>Nigel</strike> Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes, Nigel <strike>Rathbone</strike> Bruce played Dr. Watson.
Benedict Cumberbatch played Sherlock.
<strike>Nigel</strike> Basil Rathbone played Sherlock Holmes, Nigel <strike>Rathbone</strike> Bruce played Dr. Watson.
Last edited:
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Oh. Would be better with Nigel Rathbone.
Look up his reading of A Visit from Saint Nicholas. Great stuff.
Oh. Would be better with Nigel Rathbone.
Look up his reading of A Visit from Saint Nicholas. Great stuff.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Copied from the movie thread:
I saw the Hobbit tonight...here are my thoughts:
It starts off great, first half hour to 45 minutes go by pretty fast and it is ten times the movie the entire first flick was. Problem was, there was still two hours to go...
Enter the hour of nothingness that was the second part of the movie. Have you ever wanted to see a bunch of dwarves running and other people talking? Did you not get enough of that in the first movie? Sweet here ya go! Even stuff like elves killing orcs in mass quantities didnt make up for the Ambien like qualities of the second hour of the film. Much like part 1, they could have sliced part of this hour out and made the movie way better. (not to mention saved us all another ticket fee to see a third film)
Once the dwarves get to the mountain though and Gandalf gets to Dol Guldur the movie picks up again and you almost feel like you are watching the Lord of the Rings not the Hobbit 2: The Search For More Money! Smaug was amazing, the Necromancer was perfect and hey more elves killing orcs! Things are kicking butt until...
Worst ending EVER! Jesus Peter Jackson how about instead of making me watch 45 minutes of short people running you include that on the DVD extras and you give me the ending the movie should have had, which was the defeating of Smaug! Instead you build and build and build and then just cut the movie off at a ridiculously inappropriate point so everyone who sat in the theater walked out going "eh?". Seriously, it was audible in my theater, people seemed stunned they just cut the movie off, like they lost the last reel or something. Completely ruined the last part of the flick. This is what happens when you take a short story and make it a 9 hour movie you stretch out parts that have no business being stretched and then you have to find places to cut the story up where there is no purpose. Now the third movie is hampered with the defeating of Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies, plus I am sure another hour of dwarves running. (seriously they should be way less fat with all the ground they cover)
I give it a B-, the awesome parts are awesome, but the boring parts drag the movie down and the ending blew. It was better than Unexpected Journey, but that aint saying much. So far this trilogy has almost none of the magic of the Lord of the Rings and I blame the blatant cashgrab of making it a trilogy for that.
FYI before the ending...the movie was looking at a B+ because Smaug was so awesome...
In the last couple days I talked to a few others and the ending ticked them off as well. Seriously just dumb...
Copied from the movie thread:
I saw the Hobbit tonight...here are my thoughts:
It starts off great, first half hour to 45 minutes go by pretty fast and it is ten times the movie the entire first flick was. Problem was, there was still two hours to go...
Enter the hour of nothingness that was the second part of the movie. Have you ever wanted to see a bunch of dwarves running and other people talking? Did you not get enough of that in the first movie? Sweet here ya go! Even stuff like elves killing orcs in mass quantities didnt make up for the Ambien like qualities of the second hour of the film. Much like part 1, they could have sliced part of this hour out and made the movie way better. (not to mention saved us all another ticket fee to see a third film)
Once the dwarves get to the mountain though and Gandalf gets to Dol Guldur the movie picks up again and you almost feel like you are watching the Lord of the Rings not the Hobbit 2: The Search For More Money! Smaug was amazing, the Necromancer was perfect and hey more elves killing orcs! Things are kicking butt until...
Worst ending EVER! Jesus Peter Jackson how about instead of making me watch 45 minutes of short people running you include that on the DVD extras and you give me the ending the movie should have had, which was the defeating of Smaug! Instead you build and build and build and then just cut the movie off at a ridiculously inappropriate point so everyone who sat in the theater walked out going "eh?". Seriously, it was audible in my theater, people seemed stunned they just cut the movie off, like they lost the last reel or something. Completely ruined the last part of the flick. This is what happens when you take a short story and make it a 9 hour movie you stretch out parts that have no business being stretched and then you have to find places to cut the story up where there is no purpose. Now the third movie is hampered with the defeating of Smaug and the Battle of the Five Armies, plus I am sure another hour of dwarves running. (seriously they should be way less fat with all the ground they cover)
I give it a B-, the awesome parts are awesome, but the boring parts drag the movie down and the ending blew. It was better than Unexpected Journey, but that aint saying much. So far this trilogy has almost none of the magic of the Lord of the Rings and I blame the blatant cashgrab of making it a trilogy for that.
FYI before the ending...the movie was looking at a B+ because Smaug was so awesome...
In the last couple days I talked to a few others and the ending ticked them off as well. Seriously just dumb...
Last edited:
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
I don't get why you're so mad at the ending. Everyone knew that there was going to be another movie. Cliffhangers are often the way to go to make sure people are geared up for the next one.
The ending was fine to me. Sounds like whiny sourgrapes that you wanted a more complete ending to the middle of a trilogy. Hell, Empire Strikes Back had a massive cliff and I don't think anyone's ever complained about that.
I don't get why you're so mad at the ending. Everyone knew that there was going to be another movie. Cliffhangers are often the way to go to make sure people are geared up for the next one.
The ending was fine to me. Sounds like whiny sourgrapes that you wanted a more complete ending to the middle of a trilogy. Hell, Empire Strikes Back had a massive cliff and I don't think anyone's ever complained about that.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Oh the irony of you saying someone has "whiny sour grapes"...
If you honestly can't see the difference between The Empire Strikes Back and Hobbit 2 then I don't know what to say...Empire at least ended the storylines, just made sure you knew more was to come. Luke and Leia on the medship with the rebels, Chewy and Lando on the Falcon going to look for Han...if this had been like Hobbit 2 it would have cut off after Han was frozen in carbonite. But instead they had Luke face Vader, Lando helps Leia and Chewy escape and save Luke.
Look at how Two Towers ended, it too was leading into another movie but found a place to end the flick that made sense. Even though we all knew Helm's Deep was only the beginning of the War of the Ring it was a perfect cutoff point and left the third movie to be about the battle at Gondor and Mordor. I equate the ending of Hobbit 2 with cutting Two Towers off after the one orc blows up the wall. Then the King of Rohan could say "what have they done" and then faded to black.
It isn't about how we know another movie is coming, it is about how they could have added twenty minutes and made the movie a thousand times better. (Or maybe cut down on some of the needless bloat to make roo.). This is all part of the issue with taking a 300 page book and making into a 540 minute movie. If you let your inner fanboy take a break you would see that.
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
They didn't take a 300 page book and make it into a 540 minute movie. Just because you keep saying that doesn't make is so. In fact if I were to add up the pages of material that are available for this set of films it would crush the amount of pages in Lord of the Rings by a wide margin.
Oh the irony of you saying someone has "whiny sour grapes"...
If you honestly can't see the difference between The Empire Strikes Back and Hobbit 2 then I don't know what to say...Empire at least ended the storylines, just made sure you knew more was to come. Luke and Leia on the medship with the rebels, Chewy and Lando on the Falcon going to look for Han...if this had been like Hobbit 2 it would have cut off after Han was frozen in carbonite. But instead they had Luke face Vader, Lando helps Leia and Chewy escape and save Luke.
Look at how Two Towers ended, it too was leading into another movie but found a place to end the flick that made sense. Even though we all knew Helm's Deep was only the beginning of the War of the Ring it was a perfect cutoff point and left the third movie to be about the battle at Gondor and Mordor. I equate the ending of Hobbit 2 with cutting Two Towers off after the one orc blows up the wall. Then the King of Rohan could say "what have they done" and then faded to black.
It isn't about how we know another movie is coming, it is about how they could have added twenty minutes and made the movie a thousand times better. (Or maybe cut down on some of the needless bloat to make roo.). This is all part of the issue with taking a 300 page book and making into a 540 minute movie. If you let your inner fanboy take a break you would see that.
They didn't take a 300 page book and make it into a 540 minute movie. Just because you keep saying that doesn't make is so. In fact if I were to add up the pages of material that are available for this set of films it would crush the amount of pages in Lord of the Rings by a wide margin.
Handyman
Hug someone you care about...
Oh right, the Unfinished Tales and a bunch of other stories no one read...I forgot.
Yet even with all of that we still get an hour of dwarves running or going down a river in barrels and nothing of actual substance. Man those books must be AMAZING 
I will take your lack of response to the rest of my post as a passive "No Lo Contendre"
ScoobyDoo
NPC
No contendre what? You're crying over the end of part two. Thats an undisputed fact.Oh right, the Unfinished Tales and a bunch of other stories no one read...I forgot.
I will take your lack of response to the rest of my post as a passive "No Lo Contendre"
ScoobyDoo
NPC
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
You do realize that most of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is people, dwarves, elves, hobbits traveling on foot from place to place, right?
I watched the first film again last night in extended Blu-Ray form. I like it even more than I did the first time. The foe hammer and the goblin cleaver along with Sting and it's glow may be my favorite parts of the first part.
Also, I love the ending to part two cause it coincides with the ending of part 1. You know the cliffhanger at the end of part 1 where they show the eye of the dragon? Total unnecessary but awesome none the less.
And it's never boring watching a wizard dual wield two two-handed weapons at the same time. Impossible in any D&D ruleset.
Oh right, the Unfinished Tales and a bunch of other stories no one read...I forgot.
You do realize that most of The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit is people, dwarves, elves, hobbits traveling on foot from place to place, right?
I watched the first film again last night in extended Blu-Ray form. I like it even more than I did the first time. The foe hammer and the goblin cleaver along with Sting and it's glow may be my favorite parts of the first part.
Also, I love the ending to part two cause it coincides with the ending of part 1. You know the cliffhanger at the end of part 1 where they show the eye of the dragon? Total unnecessary but awesome none the less.
And it's never boring watching a wizard dual wield two two-handed weapons at the same time. Impossible in any D&D ruleset.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
The dwarves going down the river in barrels is actually in the book. Like Scooby said, most of the story is hobbits and dwarves walking from place to place. It would have been much easier if the eagles had flown them, but that wouldn't be much of a story.
The dwarves going down the river in barrels is actually in the book. Like Scooby said, most of the story is hobbits and dwarves walking from place to place. It would have been much easier if the eagles had flown them, but that wouldn't be much of a story.
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
The inability/unwillingness of the eagles flying them directly to Laketown always bugged me a bit from the book - seemed a bit contrived, just to set up the captivity by the Wood Elves.
While the barrels were in the book, the treatment in the movie is pure embarrassing cartoon indulgence. Final tally:
Dead Orcs: 324
Wounded Elves/Dwarves/Hobbits: 0
Capsized/stuck barrels while going down a tiny creek: 0
Bleah.
The inability/unwillingness of the eagles flying them directly to Laketown always bugged me a bit from the book - seemed a bit contrived, just to set up the captivity by the Wood Elves.
While the barrels were in the book, the treatment in the movie is pure embarrassing cartoon indulgence. Final tally:
Dead Orcs: 324
Wounded Elves/Dwarves/Hobbits: 0
Capsized/stuck barrels while going down a tiny creek: 0
Bleah.
Siouxfaninseattle
Fighting Sioux Fan Forever
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
Uh, the dwarves in the barrels in the book were in the barrels, as in with the covers on them. Not like in the movie where the barrels were open and there was a battle going on above them. And I haven't read the book in several years but I don't remember a battle between orcs and elves while the dwarves were escaping from the elves.
Uh, the dwarves in the barrels in the book were in the barrels, as in with the covers on them. Not like in the movie where the barrels were open and there was a battle going on above them. And I haven't read the book in several years but I don't remember a battle between orcs and elves while the dwarves were escaping from the elves.
P
Priceless
Guest
Re: Who has seen the Hobbit?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU&list=TLgbVQFs6evWQ0XD0XLJIk0EMkj3U8YLPz
I haven't seen the second film. The lids were on each barrel, so it would be impossible to know what was going on above them
However, this film series does take liberties that aren't in the books or appendices. The big one that bugged me is that the orcs in the first movie (and presumably in this one) walk in broad daylight. This is completely counter to Tolkien-lore. In the first movie of the LOTR saga, they make a point of saying that Saruman's orcs are special because they walk in the light. However, I am willing to overlook a few things in the interpretation of books to film.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU&list=TLgbVQFs6evWQ0XD0XLJIk0EMkj3U8YLPz
I haven't seen the second film. The lids were on each barrel, so it would be impossible to know what was going on above them
However, this film series does take liberties that aren't in the books or appendices. The big one that bugged me is that the orcs in the first movie (and presumably in this one) walk in broad daylight. This is completely counter to Tolkien-lore. In the first movie of the LOTR saga, they make a point of saying that Saruman's orcs are special because they walk in the light. However, I am willing to overlook a few things in the interpretation of books to film.ExileOnDaytonStreet
Drunkard
The book at least has the Eagles refusing to go near areas due to the possibility of bowmen.