The Hobbit

LOTR was excellent. I think this will be a disappointment in comparison, so am not going to bother going.

I found it fantastic– however, the CGI looks, well, not bad, but definitely not good, in 3D.  The movie is much better in a 2D version.

@DWoodchuck:

I found it fantastic– however, the CGI looks, well, not bad, but definitely not good, in 3D.  The movie is much better in a 2D version.

Good to know.

I saw the movie and liked it. I saw it in 2d. The film has pacing problems. It felt long but I was bummed it was over. It felt padded but like they could have put more stuff in it. Really loved seeing Gollum again that section is worth going if you liked LOTR.

I have read several reviews that the 48fps 3D versions make some of the CGI quite obvious but in 2D I thought the film looked terrific. I’d have gone to a 48fps version but didn’t have an option for that nearby as everyone even those who didn’t like it seemed to think you should still see the new tech.

I love LOTR first off and was hoping this would continue with a very similar cinematic look and feel. Unfortunately, I found that not to be the case. Not that it was a bad movie, because there was a lot I liked about it. But from the beginning prologue it seemed different. One thing I noticed and was not happy about was how digitalized the movie had become. As life-like as they can make things look these days you can still tell when it is fake and it looks even more that way (except for Gollum; the riddles scene was the best in the film and he looks excellent). Smaug attacking and burning Dale/Erebor was poorly done. I also really disliked having Azog as some sort of film antagonist who pursued the dwarves throughout the film on a white warg; it seemed very cliche. And then the distance/story compression at the end where the eagles leave them within sight of the mountain far off… I could list a number of other things too.

I realize that the writers needed to adapt this for 3 films, but regardless I did not think that a number of the additions or compressions were necessary. I agree that it deserved more than a single film, perhaps even more than two if Appendix material is added, but the film felt a little stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread, and I felt myself tossing uncomfortably in my seat for most of the movie.

Perhaps I need to watch it again, but I give it 3/5 right now. Not as good as any of The Lord of the Rings films.

One aspect of the film adds up to a pretty substantial departure from Tolkien’s original time-frame.  In one scene of the movie, Radagast discovers that a Necromancer (established in the books as actually being Sauron himself, though he’s not yet recognized as such) has taken up residence at Dol Guldur.  In another scene of the movie, Thorin (who already has the map to Erebor) is given the key to Erebor by Gandalf, who says that he got it from Thorin’s father (he doesn’t specific under what circumstances).  The books establish that Gandalf got both the key and the map from Thorin’s father, but they also establish that Gandalf did so when he was investigating Dol Goldur and found Thorin’s father there, dying after being held prisoner by the Necromancer for many years.  In the books, the Necromancer had already been living at Dol Guldur for 1,891 years prior to the events in The Hobbit.  Also in the books, Gandalf investigated Dol Guldur on two occasions: once 878 years before “The Hobbit” and a second time (the occasion on which he got the map and key from Thorin’s dying father) a few years before “The Hobbit.”  In the books, the year in which Bilbo goes on his adventure is the year in which the Necromancer is finally driven out of Dol Guldur – but in the movie, it’s the year in which he’s first discovered at Dol Guldur.  So this represents a time-shift of nearly 2,000 years from Tolkien’s chronology…though I can see why Jackson made this change (to get Sauron into the film in a dramatic way).

I thought it was as good, and on the same level as the other movies.

Just had it’s own thing going on, which I quite liked.

Of course, I didn’t read the book…

And yeah the stupidity of the Magic really gets to me.

But the problem in the first movie was the same.

I mean, I guess there’s no movie if the eagles just pick up the Fellowship in Rivendale, fly into mordor during the afternoon, drop frodo into mount doom, and come home for dinner?

@Gargantua:

Of course, I didn’t read the book…

Yeah… that can alter your perspective a bit.

@Gargantua:

And yeah the stupidity of the Magic really gets to me.

But the problem in the first movie was the same.

What do you mean?

I mean exactly what I said.

But the problem in the first movie was the same.

I mean, I guess there’s no movie if the eagles just pick up the Fellowship in Rivendale, fly into mordor during the afternoon, drop frodo into mount doom, and come home for dinner?

And Gandalf for all his “Magic” can’t even find water to put the Balrog out, and not one of the orcs, Sauron, or Zoroman bother to consider that the “invincible” mountain people might be a problem.

Let’s all be honest, the Invincible ghosts were ghey.  Why not just ride that ghost army all the way to mordor?  And hell, why not crush the people with the elephants from the east too?

I enjoyed the movies, and the battles and so on were pretty cool, but the magic lames the whole thing in my opinion.

I know Gar.
It´s like the Allies in WWII. I mean why can´t they just drop off a Sniper like let´s say Pvt. D. Jackson and…

Well, from my way of thinking, sir, this entire mission is a serious misallocation of valuable military resources. What I mean by that, sir, is… if you was to put me and this here sniper rifle anywhere up to and including one mile of Adolf Hitler with a clear line of sight, sir… pack your bags, fellas, war’s over. Amen.

As you can see, the Problem is , LOGISTICS

…even a magic shrink like Gandalf knows that…

Haven’t seen it yet but I was pleased that it’s been divided into several movies.

Lord of the Rings could have easily been 6 movies and I think it would have been better realized artistically if it had been a full 12-13 hours or so.

Gar, is it more the magic per se’ or is it the inconsistent application of the usage?  I read the hobbit a long time ago so can’t remember that passage.  Now how about this.  You can stab a vampire all you want, but unless you have a silver blade it won’t do much good.  The fire of a Balrog is magical, normal water would have no affect.  Gandalf might be able to create some water but not magic water nor enough to put out a house fire perhaps never mind magic demon fire.

I can accept a world with magic in it, but it has to be consistent!  Now as far as underestimating a people….Never happens in real life does it?  Pearl Harbour…err harbor and Barbarossa didn’t have the enemy pegged as particularly troublesome.  Of course I didn’t see the movie so… wry grin

@Gargantua:

And Gandalf for all his “Magic” can’t even find water to put the Balrog out, and not one of the orcs, Sauron, or Zoroman bother to consider that the “invincible” mountain people might be a problem.

Let’s all be honest, the Invincible ghosts were ghey. � Why not just ride that ghost army all the way to mordor? � And hell, why not crush the people with the elephants from the east too?

And as I said… actually reading the book may change your mind or at the very least allow you to understand.

However, I guess the books are not everyone’s piece of pie. So reading them may do you little good, if you are even motivated to do so in the first place, which I doubt. I could explain all your points of contention away, but I don’t think it is worth anyone’s time, nor would it change your mind. Just letting you know that an answer for each is out there.  :wink:

But the problem in the first movie was the same.

I mean, I guess there’s no movie if the eagles just pick up the Fellowship in Rivendale, fly into mordor during the afternoon, drop frodo into mount doom, and come home for dinner?

Here’s a condensed solution to an 11 hour problem:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yqVD0swvWU

@Gargantua:

I enjoyed the movies, and the battles and so on were pretty cool, but the magic lames the whole thing in my opinion.

Don’t tell me you’re the kind of guy who just goes to see movies for the action… the bloody or female kind… It is impossible to appreciate Tolkien if that is what you go for. Not only Tolkien but probably many of the deeper things in life too.

@MrMalachiCrunch:

Gar, is it more the magic per se’ or is it the inconsistent application of the usage?  I read the hobbit a long time ago so can’t remember that passage.  Now how about this.  You can stab a vampire all you want, but unless you have a silver blade it won’t do much good.  The fire of a Balrog is magical, normal water would have no affect.  Gandalf might be able to create some water but not magic water nor enough to put out a house fire perhaps never mind magic demon fire.

I can accept a world with magic in it, but it has to be consistent!  Now as far as underestimating a people….Never happens in real life does it?  Pearl Harbour…err harbor and Barbarossa didn’t have the enemy pegged as particularly troublesome.  Of course I didn’t see the movie so… wry grin

You hit the nail on the head, “Intellectual Consistency” is what it’s all about.  If you’re going to portray and use magic - fine, but do it reasonably.  Things also need to make intelligent sense… IE, instead of gambling your life on the rocky edge of a cliff, why not have a “discussion” as to the fact Eagles, invicible armies and other problem solvers are at your disposal, but are perhaps restricted by other issues.

Now all that said - I enjoyed the Hobbit, and I enjoyed the LOTR Movies.

And that’s what this thread is about - the movies, not the books, not the graphic novels, THE MOVIES.  It is my understanding that books and movies ought not to be compared in general.

@Gargantua:

And that’s what this thread is about - the movies, not the books, not the graphic novels, THE MOVIES.  It is my understanding that books and movies ought not to be compared in general.

That is not true at all… how do you separate this movie from its source material? An 80+ year old book that is quite universally popular.

The movie and book should be compared and have every right to be. I think comparisons with the book are both implied and relevant on this thread.  :-P  May Worsham correct me if I am wrong.

That doesn’t mean the movie cannot differ from the book in certain respects, just that it is valid to assess why. And anyway, I was only providing you and everyone else with the reassurance that there are answers for why things were filmed or written the way they were… you don’t have to deflect your lack of knowledge by claiming this relates only to the film. It is okay to admit that you don’t know.  :wink:

Ok so how is the fact they don’t ride eagles to Modor explained in the book?

@Gargantua:

Ok so how is the fact they don’t ride eagles to Modor explained in the book?

Upon doing some further research, it appears that Tolkien never really addressed this issue in the book or outside of it other than to say:

“The Eagles are a dangerous ‘machine’. I have used them sparingly, and that is the absolute limit of their credibility or usefulness. The alighting of a Great Eagle of the Misty Mountains in the Shire is absurd; it also makes the later capture of G. [Gandalf] by Saruman incredible, and spoils the account of his escape.”

I was thinking primarily of Tom Bombadil (a book character not in the movie). However, below I have outlined some very plausible reasons why the eagles are not more involved or utilized. (I still cannot claim all credit here because I feel as though I have read at least one of these reasons from a book somewhere…)

The eagles, while a powerful force, are aloof from the cares of Middle-earth. The Ring does not interest the eagles, nor does the quest to destroy it. They do not understand the problem of the ring, because its power cannot influence them. They are a sovereign race that are never treated with (throughout the history of Tolkien’s works) but are given to their own devices; which are fortunately for the most part good. This lack of world-participation, even with the Free-peoples, is illustrated in their absence from the Council of Elrond in The Fellowship of the Ring. They were not even invited.

Actually, the temperament of the eagles could be related to Smaug, from The Hobbit. Though Smaug is a dragon, a creature whose historic purpose in Tolkien’s works has been evil, he is not a servant of Sauron nor under his control. Smaug has his own desires and keeps to himself so long as it suits him. Gandalf is rightly afraid in The Hobbit that Smaug could ally with Sauron in the coming conflict, to disastrous effect. His purpose in helping the dwarves is ultimately so that Smaug may be destroyed, not directly to help them regain their treasure. That aside, the eagles, like Smaug, are independent and detached, given to their own devices. Smaug would care naught for the War of the Ring and for the most part neither will the eagles. Their domain high in the mountains will never be threatened.

Additionally, eagles were direct vassals of Manwe (roughly a Zeus-equivalent). In the early ages of the world, the eagles were both larger and more active with elves and, later on, men. However, as the direct power of the Valar (gods) was less present in Middle-earth, Numenor (Atlantis-like island kingdom of Men) was destroyed, and Valinor physically removed from the world, logically the eagle’s connection with Manwe was also lessened and their participation in world events similarly waned.

In terms of a literary device, Tolkien’s use of eagles was almost always a sign of eucatastrophe; a word Tolkien invented which means the sudden turn of bleak events for the good; opposite of a catastrophe. Their presence is very much of a symbolic and spiritual choice. Repeated use of the eagles would at once cheapen their status and make the whole story unnecessary in the first place; as was hinted at in Tolkien’s quote above.

But I suppose that is your point; if the eagles were utilized as transportation, The Lord of the Rings would only be 5 pages long. I guess you can take my explanations or leave them. All in all there is no direct explanation; more of a holistic understanding based on knowledge of all Tolkien’s Middle-earth writing.