The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

Oddly enough there didn't seem to be an actual thread for these yet, so.

Peter Jackson at Comic-Con -- script for first film near completion, budgeting and casting to follow. Films due in 2011 and 2012.

I've read somewhere that Mike Mignola will be joining the general design team, along with the usual WETA suspects plus Alan Lee and John Howe again.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:27 (5 years ago) Permalink

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

Bobkate Goldtwat (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

although they will look fantastic, there's little doubt of that.

Bobkate Goldtwat (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:38 (5 years ago) Permalink

I will definitely watch them.

chap, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:42 (5 years ago) Permalink

If only to to offset darraghmac's non-watching policy

chap, Saturday, 25 July 2009 00:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

I'll definitely be seeing these, but I don't get why they need the 2 film treatment.

Moodles, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:30 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

I have more faith in the Hellboy guy than the King Kong guy, for what it's worth.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:45 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

What, so they're just making things up now? Tolkien franchise? Sounds crass. If it's not based on a book then wtf is it?

fields of salmon, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

Supposedly the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship.

That was an original plan but no longer -- as noted in the link above:

“There was talk about doing ‘The Hobbit’ as one movie and making an ‘Hobbit,’ and ‘Lord of the Rings,’ bridge movie. We didn’t really know ourselves but as we worked through the story line we thought ‘Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

“The book, well the book is what the book is and we just worked through a process and included all the events that we we would like to see in the film, plus the fact that we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer and various side stories that are happening. So we decided really that the two movies we are doing would actually would be ‘The Hobbit.’ ”

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:52 (5 years ago) Permalink

the first one is the Hobbit story and the second film will take place in the interim between Hobbit and Fellowship. Could be good.

Not sure how the first sentence and the second one work together.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:53 (5 years ago) Permalink

*cough* Um, my post? Just now?

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:54 (5 years ago) Permalink

Frankly if they can drop Tom Bombadil from the LotR movies but fit that were-bear twat into the prequels then fuck them even more than I already wanna fuck 'em.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

I guess I just am comfortable with the fact that I read these books decades ago. So if someone wants to make a spectacular $200million fantasy film based on these properties, I'll gladly get high and watch them.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

Sorry Ned. We crossed posts. Thanks for the illumination.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Well obviously we could squeeze ‘The Hobbit’ into one movie, but In a three hour movie you would be amazed at how much of the story you would have to lose.”

Slightly heartening news, but not very heartening.

fields of salmon, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

x-post -- No worries etc.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:57 (5 years ago) Permalink

Really, all I want is for WETA and company to do the best dragon EVER on screen. I have a feeling they will.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:58 (5 years ago) Permalink

Everyone who clicks on this thread will pay to see this movie. Quit frontin youse nerds!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 01:59 (5 years ago) Permalink

Not everybody, I can guarantee.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night (while watching the intolerably boring Sky Crawlers). I really enjoyed Dragon Wars, while Reign of Fire was hugely disappointing (88 minutes of dudes flexing, 2 minutes of dragons. WTF!).

So yeah--an epic SMAUG would be really timely.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:00 (5 years ago) Permalink

So if they split it in two, wheredo they put the break? When Gandalf leaves them before Mirkwood, or at the end of the barrel riders?

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:11 (5 years ago) Permalink

Leaving 'em before Mirkwood makes for a perfect cliffhanger as such, so probably that.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

They could base it on the adventure game and leave them stuck in the Misty Mountains forever.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Fleeing the Goblins with assist from the Eagles could be an epic ending.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:15 (5 years ago) Permalink

It just depends if they want to spend an hour on the Battle of Five Armies or not.

Part of me doesn't want this to happen because I love the Rankin Bass version, warts and all. Plus, the voice of Smaug in that still gives me shivers. Plus, "Theodore".

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

I hope they keep the song "15 birds, in 5 fir trees, their feathers were burned, in the fiery breeze..." I could go on and on.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:17 (5 years ago) Permalink

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:18 (5 years ago) Permalink

Awesome Nate!

I can (and do) quote this movie all the time (and sing the songs). I've watched it every Christmas morning for the last 20-some years.

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:21 (5 years ago) Permalink

Not the right movie, but I was once in a band that did a cover of "Where There's A Whip."

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:23 (5 years ago) Permalink

We had a discussion about D-Wars vs Reign of Fire last night

where does dragonslayer fit into this

鬼の手 (Edward III), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:26 (5 years ago) Permalink

Saw Dragonslayer at the cinema when it came out. As a 12 year-old felt a bit cheated cos it was 90 minutes of build-up and 5 minutes of dragon-slaying action, but the gore was cool when it finally happened.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:29 (5 years ago) Permalink

d-wars is the most utter garbage!!!!!!! def watched reign of fire a lot as a kid. maybe four or five times.

ian, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

"Where There's a Whip, There's a Way" -- great song! Great lyric!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:41 (5 years ago) Permalink

xx-post - Dragonslayer - yawn. There is a boob shot though, right?

I do like the dragon from Fritz Lang's Siegfried though. An oft-overlooked fantasy classic!

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:43 (5 years ago) Permalink

(actual dragon fight takes place about 4:20 in that clip btw).

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:47 (5 years ago) Permalink

Oh I've wanted a DVD of Nibelungen for years. Think there's a bunch of sub-Wagner mythology movies from the 10s and 20s, yeah?

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:49 (5 years ago) Permalink

Yeah this is the only one I've seen. Really awesome. This is by no means the best part.

Nate Carson, Saturday, 25 July 2009 02:51 (5 years ago) Permalink

I had the idea that Eureka! had put out Lang's "Die Nibelungen" on DVD, but I can't find any ref to it whatsoever on their site. Kino do a 2DVD vers of it (which I got to admit I haven't got -I watched it on youtube :-/ ). The dragon is great! Best bits for me are the scenes in the primordial forest, which IIRC they built the sets for in an old Zeppelin hangar. Amazing visuals, throughout. Pt1 here:

f1f0 (Pashmina), Saturday, 25 July 2009 10:31 (5 years ago) Permalink

Just looked. Was confused in my inebriated state last night cos Amazon have the Kino release as a US import, but it seems to be Region 2.

General Pubic (Noodle Vague), Saturday, 25 July 2009 10:36 (5 years ago) Permalink

Hey at least D-Wars has dragons in it. Reign of Fire is a bullshit tease. Could have been the best movie ever if they'd done it right. What a premise!

― Nate Carson, Saturday, July 25, 2009 2:41 AM (9 hours ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Matthew McConaughey is pretty hilarious in it as the crazed baqld dragon-hunter from America

Panera - Vulgar Display Of Flour (latebloomer), Saturday, 25 July 2009 11:55 (5 years ago) Permalink

er that should be "bald"

Panera - Vulgar Display Of Flour (latebloomer), Saturday, 25 July 2009 11:56 (5 years ago) Permalink

hellboy/blade 2 director guillermo del toro is directing the hobbit movies under the watchful eye of peter jackson

won't be catching these then.

um, why? I think it's important to remember del toro is also (and more relevantly) the director of the devil's backbone and pan's labyrinth.

akm, Saturday, 25 July 2009 18:12 (5 years ago) Permalink

you say "director of pan's labyrinth" like thats a good thing...

the stain specialist (Viceroy), Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:13 (5 years ago) Permalink

I hope the vid game they make of this just involves floating in a darkened barrel.

bad-boy cartographer (Abbott), Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:37 (5 years ago) Permalink

...in your barrel, smelling your apples.

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 20:46 (5 years ago) Permalink

we wanted to embellish a few things and put a little extra narrative that includes Gandalf and what he was doing with the Necromancer

stop it!

JimD, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Having a torrid affair with the Necromancer

Ned Raggett, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:06 (5 years ago) Permalink

Heh, yeah. I just think that it's important to the atmosphere of The Hobbit that when Gandalf disappears for big chunks of it, you don't really know where he's gone, or why, or whether he'll come back. I think filling in those gaps can only hurt the story.

(Although I've not read it for 20 years, I may be remembering wrongly - maybe he does explain all that stuff really).

JimD, Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:14 (5 years ago) Permalink

Betcha Middle-Earth has a magical creature with eyes in its hands that we won't have known about until this movie comes out.

Beanbag the Gardener (WmC), Saturday, 25 July 2009 23:16 (5 years ago) Permalink

they did the dishes

difficult listening hour, Sunday, 11 May 2014 17:48 (7 months ago) Permalink

3 months pass...

FUCKING POD RACING aka jackson goes full-on lucas

ledge, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:46 (3 months ago) Permalink

Methinks Game of Thrones increasingly makes this look like child's play, because, well ...

― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:36 PM (1 year ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

alanbatman (abanana), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 10:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

That title is gonna be a let-down for anyone expecting an actual five-army free-for-all.

jmm, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 13:41 (3 months ago) Permalink

this whole trilogy is still the worst, most ridiculous thing in cinema and jackson should've just left it to ratner so no one would've ever gotten any ideas about its usefulness as anything other than a clear cash grab

linda cardellini (zachlyon), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:12 (3 months ago) Permalink

Still planning on angrily watching the third one at Cinerama, just like the first two, can't really account for it.

heck (silby), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:30 (3 months ago) Permalink

it's amazing at how peter jackson is dutifully attempting to recreate the LOTR formula and hitting a lot of the same notes (cheerful hobbit at the center, gandalf, portentous hints of future doom, etc) but it feels stretched so thin and false and there's no richness to the story or the setting, it feels strictly video game. i mean the LOTR films had the feel of a lived-in decaying world, this has zero of that sense despite attempts at recreating it. also i'm getting tired of those shots he uses every five minutes now (only every forty minutes in the LOTR films): a group of bros scampering across a plains or a bridge or a marsh or a rocky outcropping or a mountain while a camera swoops above and past them or in the opposite direction.

anyway the main point is they're just wrong in so many ways but i can't exactly hate them, PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:49 (3 months ago) Permalink

Funny how the progression of the entire LOTR related movies and culture parallel so well with Star Wars.

Evan, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:54 (3 months ago) Permalink

xpost -- yeah coming in with these Hobbit films with the view that it's only a ridiculous indulgence is the way to go. It didn't fully hit me until I saw the first one, even if I already had bad vibes when they went from two to three films, but after that first viewing, it was clear that's how to treat them.

Ned Raggett, Wednesday, 20 August 2014 19:57 (3 months ago) Permalink

martin freeman is very good i think. and i think the gollum stuff in the first film was solid.

i forgot the worst thing in the trilogy, though, which is basically creating an even worse character than that orc from the final battle in ROTK and making him the central (non-ethereal smoke) villain of the whole story.

LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:01 (3 months ago) Permalink

pretty sure he's making three films full of tiresome rube goldberg set pieces and oh boy big battle scenes because $$$

resulting post (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:11 (3 months ago) Permalink

martin freeman is very good i think...

not enough information. was he even in the second one?

resulting post (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:12 (3 months ago) Permalink

The fact that Evangeline Lily is in this is something I find especially irksome, I don't know why.

Dokken played here for a Ribfest and people were total assholes (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:17 (3 months ago) Permalink

PJ clearly loves the material. too much, which is why he's making three films instead of one super-long one.

i wish i still had your childlike naivete

linda cardellini (zachlyon), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:25 (3 months ago) Permalink

I think he clearly loves absurd runtimes as well as $$$$

Dokken played here for a Ribfest and people were total assholes (Sparkle Motion), Wednesday, 20 August 2014 20:50 (3 months ago) Permalink

2 months pass...

spoiler alert

linda cardellini (zachlyon), Saturday, 25 October 2014 11:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

Fuckin' eagles, man.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 25 October 2014 13:39 (1 month ago) Permalink

i had more fun itt than i have done on the rest of ilx put together in the interim i think

local eire man (darraghmac), Saturday, 25 October 2014 14:01 (1 month ago) Permalink

resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, 25 October 2014 16:57 (1 month ago) Permalink

ONE LAST...

...trailer.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 6 November 2014 18:22 (1 month ago) Permalink

WAR BATS

ledge, Friday, 7 November 2014 00:13 (1 month ago) Permalink

Hobbit 3: Prince of Thieves at 1:16

ledge, Friday, 7 November 2014 00:16 (1 month ago) Permalink

#onelasttime

LIKE If you are against racism (omar little), Friday, 7 November 2014 00:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

Odds on PJ trilogising the Simlmarillion in ten years time, after directing a couple of underperforming films in the interim?

the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Friday, 7 November 2014 00:26 (1 month ago) Permalink

Cut Scene: The Movie.

That looks absolutely unwatchable. For comparison's sake, I rewatched the "Return of the King" trailer, and check out how much more chill it is:

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 7 November 2014 03:18 (1 month ago) Permalink

Well that wasn't about the defining moment of Middle Earth, was it?

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 7 November 2014 06:38 (1 month ago) Permalink

Very little actual hobbit in that trailer.

the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Friday, 7 November 2014 12:25 (1 month ago) Permalink

That looks absolutely crappy.

Frederik B, Friday, 7 November 2014 12:35 (1 month ago) Permalink

"Errday Frrruduh moves clusserr to Murrrdrrr" haha

Acid Hose (Capitaine Jay Vee), Friday, 7 November 2014 13:08 (1 month ago) Permalink

Man if you guys can't get behind Elf King Lee Pace riding a giant moose into battle, Flava Flav can't do nothin' for ya.

Οὖτις Δαυ & τηε Κνιγητσ (Phil D.), Friday, 7 November 2014 13:56 (1 month ago) Permalink

That looks absolutely crappy.

This is key, emphasis on looks. I still can't figure out why, with 10 years of new technology, more experience and an even greater familiarity with the subject matter/cast, these movies look so much more terrible. The sets, the make-up, the FX, everything. Just shitty.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 7 November 2014 14:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

Yeah there's some Xena level shit there, but without the self-parody.

the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Friday, 7 November 2014 14:42 (1 month ago) Permalink

Very little actual hobbit in that trailer.

― the joke should be over once the kid is eaten. (chap), Friday, November 7, 2014

in fairness there's very little actual hobbit in this EPICAL THREE-PART MOTION PICTURE EVENT so

resulting post (rogermexico.), Friday, 7 November 2014 19:27 (1 month ago) Permalink

Maybe he will put out a director's cut of just Hobbit stuff.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 7 November 2014 19:28 (1 month ago) Permalink

There's just something really unappealing about a film called 'The Battle of Five Armies' especially when it seems one of the armies is a pack of bats? How are they going to spend three hours on elves and dwarves fighting bats?

Frederik B, Friday, 7 November 2014 23:15 (1 month ago) Permalink

It'll be like the bit in The Fellowship with the Crebain but 50 minutes long

tsrobodo, Saturday, 8 November 2014 01:42 (1 month ago) Permalink

How are they going to spend three hours on elves and dwarves fighting bats?

Probably the same way people spend hundreds of hours playing "Call of Duty" or whatever.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 8 November 2014 02:11 (1 month ago) Permalink

It'd be cool if the movie started with a tutorial level... ease you into things, learn how to fight lesser bats before you have to send the whole Hobbit army against the whole bat army.

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 8 November 2014 04:03 (1 month ago) Permalink

If I remember correctly from the book Gandalf casts a spell that causes the bats and hobbits to combine as hobbats that fuck everybody up.

EZ Snappin, Saturday, 8 November 2014 04:19 (1 month ago) Permalink

Watched the trailer & was all, "Is this a trailer for the second movie? Because I think I've seen every moment of this before, portentously uttered dialogue and all."

Still planning on angrily watching the third one at Cinerama, just like the first two, can't really account for it.

― heck (silby)

hardcore dilettante, Saturday, 8 November 2014 05:14 (1 month ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

(THIS POST HAS SOME SPOILERS FOR THE NEW MOVIE, THOUGH IF YOU'VE READ THE BOOK, MOST OF IT ISN'T REALLY SPOILING ANYTHING.)

So I just saw the new movie, and thought it was okay. Not as good as the first Hobbit, which I thought was a totally fun romp, but roughly on the same level as the second one. The problems were pretty much the same as with the second movie too: everything was a bit too serious and grey, not much fun and adventure anymore, though I guess it was more acceptable for the grand finale than the middle episode. There were also some overtly extended fight scenes: in particular, Legolas gets a final battle that goes on waayyy too long, it feels more like a special effects showcase than something organic to the movie. On the other hand, Thorin's last stand was done nicely, it had an well-staged, effective setting (an icy lake that slowly keeps crumbling around Thorin and his opponent), and it doesn't overstay its welcome.

As with the previous movie, the 48FPS/3D combination is disracting at first, but it makes the more complex action scenes look really good. The actual Battle of the Five Armies is probably the best part of the movie, the way the technlology allows Jackson to create this layered canvas where you can follow every moving piece in this whole grandiose choreography is still breathtaking. And, while the story of the trilogy as a whole is kinda directionless and incoherent, there are some individual scenes where Jackson manages to show he's still a very competent visual storyteller. In particular I liked the scene where Thorin growing greed/madness is illustrated via a clever scenic metaphor; I don't want spoil it any more, but you know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie.

On the minus side, I thought the cliffhanger with Smaug from the previous movie was resolved a bit too easily and quickly in this one. I guess it's cool they stayed truthful to the book and got rid of Smaug before the actual climax of the story, but all in all we got more of talking Smaug in the previous flick than Smaug in action in this one, which is a bit sad, because he was so well realized as a CGI character. Like in the previous movie, the 48FPS/3D thing really makes him come alive here too; with Smaug it doesn't matter if the technology makes everything look a bit fake, because a dragon isn't supposed to feel realistic anyway.

After having finished this movie, I can also say that the whole Dol Guldur/Sauron subplot was completely pointless. It doesn't really have anything to do with the main Erebor plot, it's there just to tie these movies to LotR. (IIRC none of that stuff was in the book?) However, it does provide two of the most impressive visuals in the movie. First, we get a new design for the Ringwraiths, which is really creepy and impressive, in that it actually uses the "unrealness" of CGI and 3D effects to its advantage. (Sadly there's also an overtly long fight scene involving the Wraiths, I think Jackson should've realized that they'd be more effective if he didn't show them so much.) And then there's a confrontation (not an actual fight, thank god) between Galadriel and Sauron, which is just awesome! In The Fellowship of the Ring, I hated the scene where Galadriel is tempted by the Ring and her voice gets weird and screechy and her face is altered with special effects, because I thought Blanchett could've conveyed her temptation with, you know, just acting. Well, here we have variation of the same thing, but in this case I think it works, because we are actually witnessing a magical battle of wills between two superbeings. It's totally over-the-top and really cool, and Sauron's new visual is also much better than the spotlight-vagina-eye from LotR.

So yeah, if you didn't like the previous movies and/or felt that they pissed on Tolkien's work, you're not gonna feel differen about this one either. But if you thought (like me) that they were uneven and incoherently plotted but also thrilling and cool-looking roller-coaster rides with some decent actors and occasional touching character moments, well this is more of the same stuff. It's not as good as the LotR movies (or even the first movie in this trilogy), but worth the admission? Hell yeah.

Tuomas, Friday, 12 December 2014 23:39 (1 week ago) Permalink

I hated the scene where Galadriel is tempted by the Ring and her voice gets weird and screechy and her face is altered with special effects,

lol u nuts this is one of the best scenes/most effective uses of effects in the original trilogy

Οὖτις, Friday, 12 December 2014 23:44 (1 week ago) Permalink

I gotta add that besides the Dol Guldur stuff, Legolas was also completely extraneous to the whole trilogy, they could've left him out without the story suffering a bit... Looks like they wanted to have some familiar faces besides Gandalf in these movies, but they just didn't manage to find a way to properly integrate the elements that weren't in the book. To make things worse, Legolas's radical elvish parkour stunts are just as prominent and irritating as they were in the LotR movies... Like, in this one there's a scene where a bridge is collapsing under Legolas and he's jumping on bricks that are literally hanging in the air, like fucking Super Mario or something.

Tuomas, Saturday, 13 December 2014 00:26 (6 days ago) Permalink

is there a hobbit in this one?

resulting post (rogermexico.), Saturday, 13 December 2014 03:16 (6 days ago) Permalink

I heard they're going to add the hobbit to the the director's cut.

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 13 December 2014 03:58 (6 days ago) Permalink

I remember thinking the Galadriel temptation thing was great in the theater, it really was startling and weird and she sounded so booming and nuts, it was of a piece with Bilbo's reaction to the Ring in Rivendell. But on DVD the cheapness of the effect kinda overpowered the scene - IIRC this is one where they had farmed some effects out to some outside studio whose work they didn't end up liking at all but they had to keep it.

Doctor Casino, Saturday, 13 December 2014 05:29 (6 days ago) Permalink

The new one is unbelievably boring.

painfully alive in a drugged and dying culture (DavidM), Sunday, 14 December 2014 00:11 (5 days ago) Permalink

what I'm prepared to believe might surprise u

resulting post (rogermexico.), Sunday, 14 December 2014 00:52 (5 days ago) Permalink

After having finished this movie, I can also say that the whole Dol Guldur/Sauron subplot was completely pointless. It doesn't really have anything to do with the main Erebor plot, it's there just to tie these movies to LotR. (IIRC none of that stuff was in the book?)

Lightly. Even in the original version Gandalf leaves Bilbo et al because he has to fight the Necromancer elsewhere, as is discussed briefly at the end of the book on the way back. Tolkien essentially developed and partially retconned it later in LOTR's appendices by having it be the culmination of spying by Gandalf over time and realizing that Sauron had come back, thus partially his urgency about taking care of Smaug via the dwarves; he had already discovered Thrain in Dol Guldur and received the key and map from him before he died. The White Council attacks Dol Guldur, Sauron puts up a slight resistance and then flees eastward in a feint, he ends up back in Mordor etc. etc. From there Jackson and team fleshed it out and reworked it in the version we now have, only here things are more sudden and ad hoc, Gandalf actually gets captured and rescued etc., there's an attempt to REALLY create a new overarching demi-mythology that's not really anywhere in the stories -- the High Fells as a tomb, the origin of the Ringwraiths, Gundabad as the capital as such of Angmar, and so forth. Not the end of the world but it almost felt more like a series of explanations and stories from the Iron Crown Enterprises role playing games instead. (And the geography of the whole story is all *over* the map at this point, but they really only needed to keep things vague for the film anyway, I guess.)

Anyway! Saw it tonight and...pleasantly surprised? If only because it was so SHORT. Shortest of all the six films at two hours and change. I went in lowballing all expectations, honestly, and it worked better than I might have guessed. Even though I kinda figured Thorin and Bilbo's final scene would be more 'dramatic' as such than the book, which I appreciate for its quiet gravitas, they at least kept in a good chunk of the actual dialogue, including a reworked key line about what should be better valued. And while they're nowhere in Tolkien at all beyond a vague reference in LOTR about strange creatures gnawing in the 'deep places of the world,' those sandworm cousins in the battle scene, while kinda ridiculous, still looked pretty great. More tomorrow but hey, at least this is all over bar whatever the extended version turns out to be.

Ned Raggett, Thursday, 18 December 2014 05:59 (Yesterday) Permalink

Gonna see this on xmas day I think

difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 18 December 2014 06:12 (Yesterday) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.