The Hobbit (2012 - 2014)

1910111315

Comments

  • edited December 2013 Posts: 7,653
    Gerard wrote:
    BTW : Evangeline Lilly as the next Bond Girl. Who's with me ?

    I would find too quickley that that Craig lad is in the way. ;)

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Yes, she'd make a great Bond girl.
  • ShardlakeShardlake Leeds, West Yorkshire, England
    Posts: 4,043
    I must have been watching a completely different film to some of you, this film seriously dragged, not as much a the kitchen sink drama of part 1 but it wasn't far behind and Blanchett is wooden as hell as Gladriel, she sounds like she's stoned.
  • edited December 2013 Posts: 2,015
    Yes I'm surprised so many people found it brillant, or even that the cliffhanger is great. BUT I should point out that I saw it in 3D HFR (as I did for the 1st one), and well, well, it definitely brings a "TV show" feel to it now (and no more feeling of discovery as with the 1st) so it may inconsciously have an impact on my opinion. I even thought to myself that the cliffhanger looked like the cliffhanger of a midseason of a cheap TV show...
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    I was going to ask if the 3D was worth it at all; usually isn't for most films, the only 3D I've ever seen that wowed me was for 'Avatar.'
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote:
    I was going to ask if the 3D was worth it at all; usually isn't for most films, the only 3D I've ever seen that wowed me was for 'Avatar.'

    Yes as these movies have actually been filmed with the right camera's instead of reworking them afterwards.

  • Posts: 7,653
    Shardlake wrote:
    I must have been watching a completely different film to some of you, this film seriously dragged, not as much a the kitchen sink drama of part 1 but it wasn't far behind and Blanchett is wooden as hell as Gladriel, she sounds like she's stoned.

    Are you talking about the 1st one as I do not recall Galadriel in the second one.

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Gladriel was in DoS for literally 2 seconds.
  • Posts: 5,990
    Still, there's one scene which, from the beginning, made me think of Skyfall. And I was proven right at the end of the scene. I'm pretty sure all of you know what I am talking about, right ?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    My girlfriend and I watched 'An Unexpected Journey' today then went out and saw 'The Desolation of Smaug.' I thought TDOS was fantastic, really surprised me. I didn't think it had pacing issues whatsoever and the fight scenes were great as usual. Smaug was impressive, as well, I thought Cumberbatch did great. I had a few complaints with the CGI, but it's easily overlooked, and wow, that cliffhanger was excellent. Really, really good stuff. Who else managed to spot Stephen Colbert's cameo? I did!
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Really, really good stuff. Who else managed to spot Stephen Colbert's cameo? I did!

    Where was it?

  • Posts: 5,767
    Yes I'm surprised so many people found it brillant, or even that the cliffhanger is great. BUT I should point out that I saw it in 3D HFR (as I did for the 1st one), and well, well, it definitely brings a "TV show" feel to it now (and no more feeling of discovery as with the 1st) so it may inconsciously have an impact on my opinion. I even thought to myself that the cliffhanger looked like the cliffhanger of a midseason of a cheap TV show...
    The whole package reminded me somehow of a tv show, not just the visuals (I anyhow didn´t see it in HFR, and I seriously don´t believe the visual impression is marred by HFR, because the reason it looks as it looks is the concious decision to go for this kind of visual style).
    I´m kind of hesitant with my opinion, because on the one hand I really like a lot of tv shows, but on the other hand the LOTR trilogy was so amazingly epic in a cinematic sense I think I need time to digest this new impression of middle earth.

  • NicNacNicNac Administrator, Moderator
    Posts: 7,582
    Sandy wrote:
    I'm aware of that @4EverBonded. I'm actually a freak for phonetics so I can give some enlightening on this matter (yes, I know it's boring, but I just love it).
    That accent sign ´ means that this U should be pronounced as a pure U. As a rule of thumb when dealing with Tolkien's languages every vowel is to be pronounced in a tonic way, except Hobbit names which are similar to English. What does that mean?
    A's should be pronounced as in father /a/
    E's should be pronounced as in bet /ɛ/
    I's should be pronounced as in feet /i/
    O's should be as in raw /ɒ/
    U's should be as in foot /u/

    Therefore the au in Smaug should sound like ou in ouch, /ɑʊ/

    Having grown up loving the book, I was surprised that so many names are pronounced differently to how they always sounded in my head.

    I always sounded Smaug as Smawg.
    Gollum to me was Ger-LUM (because Tolkein said it was the sound of the creature swallowing, and this sounded right to me).
    Bofur to me was Boffer, rather than Bowfer. Don't know why, it just was.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    SaintMark wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Really, really good stuff. Who else managed to spot Stephen Colbert's cameo? I did!

    Where was it?

    It's in Lake Town, he plays a spy. I believe it's when Bard arrives back home, we see a shot of a man smoking a pipe and he has an eyepatch on, and he bangs on the wall he's next to to alert the other spies. His wife and kids were in it, as well, though I'm not sure where they were in relation to the rest of the Lake Town scenes.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote:
    SaintMark wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Really, really good stuff. Who else managed to spot Stephen Colbert's cameo? I did!

    Where was it?

    It's in Lake Town, he plays a spy. I believe it's when Bard arrives back home, we see a shot of a man smoking a pipe and he has an eyepatch on, and he bangs on the wall he's next to to alert the other spies. His wife and kids were in it, as well, though I'm not sure where they were in relation to the rest of the Lake Town scenes.

    Thanks now I know where to look next time I see it. Would Jackson mean anything by letting Colbert playing snitch/spy I wonder??

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    Speaking of cameos, was that Jackson in the very beginning of the film biting on the carrot? I believe it was the very beginning, but it might've been when they got to Lake Town.
  • Posts: 7,653
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Speaking of cameos, was that Jackson in the very beginning of the film biting on the carrot? I believe it was the very beginning, but it might've been when they got to Lake Town.

    The movie opens indeed with Peter Jackson himself eating something, I know that pretty sure as 5 minutes in the movie went from 3D to something unwatchable so they restarted the movie from the beginning. And I got to see it twice.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,960
    SaintMark wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    Speaking of cameos, was that Jackson in the very beginning of the film biting on the carrot? I believe it was the very beginning, but it might've been when they got to Lake Town.

    The movie opens indeed with Peter Jackson himself eating something, I know that pretty sure as 5 minutes in the movie went from 3D to something unwatchable so they restarted the movie from the beginning. And I got to see it twice.

    Awesome, makes me even more proud that I spotted both cameos.
  • Bradford4Bradford4 Banned
    Posts: 152
    Keen eyes wil notice he appears in a cameo as well eating a carrot outside the Inn of the Prancing Pony in The Fellowship of the Ring: Part 1 of LOTR.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Bradford4 wrote:
    Keen eyes wil notice he appears in a cameo as well eating a carrot outside the Inn of the Prancing Pony in The Fellowship of the Ring: Part 1 of LOTR.
    I´m not entirely sure it´s the same guy, but right at the beginning of TDOS that guy´s walk instantly made me think of Jackson. Perhaps he was walking the same way in the first LOTR film.

  • Bradford4Bradford4 Banned
    Posts: 152
    No. I am right... go back to verify. It is Peter Jackson in Both Hobbit 2 and LOTR 1.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    boldfinger wrote:
    Yes I'm surprised so many people found it brillant, or even that the cliffhanger is great. BUT I should point out that I saw it in 3D HFR (as I did for the 1st one), and well, well, it definitely brings a "TV show" feel to it now (and no more feeling of discovery as with the 1st) so it may inconsciously have an impact on my opinion. I even thought to myself that the cliffhanger looked like the cliffhanger of a midseason of a cheap TV show...
    The whole package reminded me somehow of a tv show, not just the visuals (I anyhow didn´t see it in HFR, and I seriously don´t believe the visual impression is marred by HFR, because the reason it looks as it looks is the concious decision to go for this kind of visual style).
    I´m kind of hesitant with my opinion, because on the one hand I really like a lot of tv shows, but on the other hand the LOTR trilogy was so amazingly epic in a cinematic sense I think I need time to digest this new impression of middle earth.

    I'm also surprised to hear so many people praise the film. I think it had more cheap moments that any of the Jackson films. I'm now speaking as a cinema fan rather than a Tolkien fan. I think it dragged at moments, there was no focus on the film always shifting from place to place, and there are things in there that made me cringe.
    Now, as a Tolkien fan. Considering AUJ I decided to go watch DOS without many expectations, to just go with the flow. It was actually working out great! I was sort of enjoying the silliness of the entire thing until something happened. It is something that completely departs from the book but, in contrast to several other alterations that Jackson has done previously (that either made more sense cinematically or made the story easier to tell) this was completely deranged and had no possible explanation.
    when the dwarves enter Erebor and Thorin confronts Smaug

    Everything from this point onwards make no sense at all. Unless we assume that the dwarves have lost their ability to think due to, I don't know, repeated brain injury?

    There is one question that really needs to be asked: Why is Peter Jackson afraid of accepting Bilbo as the hero of The Hobbit?

    Good:
    - Freeman and Cumberbatch are amazing as Bilbo and Smaug!
    - Thranduil is great;
    - The design of Smaug is great;
    - Master of Laketown! I love Stephen Fry;
    - Bard was surprisingly good, I'm not usually a big fan of Luke Evans but I have to admit he did a great job;
    - Everything that remains true to canon.

    Bad:

    - Thranduil is criminally wasted;
    - Beorn is reduced to a minimum;
    - Legolas doesn't look the least like Legolas from LOTR. Is continuity that difficult?
    - Dumb dwarves :-w ;
    - I really think Richard Armitage was a terrible choice for Thorin. I was surprised when he was cast but I always like him so I was OK with it. But the more I see the less I like. I guess the blaim also lies in how the character was changed for the film.
    - Shameful sabotage of Bilbo's importance to the entire story. Something they should never have forgotten: it's all about Bilbo!
  • Posts: 5,767
    Sandy wrote:
    Bad:[/b]
    ...
    - Legolas doesn't look the least like Legolas from LOTR. Is continuity that difficult?
    Having not read any of the books, I thought Elves are like that, that they tend to look younger the older they get ;-).
    Sandy wrote:
    - I really think Richard Armitage was a terrible choice for Thorin. I was surprised when he was cast but I always like him so I was OK with it. But the more I see the less I like. I guess the blaim also lies in how the character was changed for the film.
    I haven´t read the books, but I have a feeling I know what you mean.
    Sandy wrote:
    - Shameful sabotage of Bilbo's importance to the entire story. Something they should never have forgotten: it's all about Bilbo!
    With so many dwarves in the film, it´s hard to give all of them enough presentation time. I find it a bit disturbing that some of them are neglected in the first film, some others in the second. I takes away from the idea of one single team. Perhaps they should have gone the Untouchables route and should have reduced the number of dwarves for the film. Which however still doesn´t excuse why Bilbo drops out of the focus.

    Since you seem to be kind of a Tolkien fan @Sandy, what did you think about
    the love story between Kili and the Elve dame?
    I found that forced in, and not at all fitting to the overall story.

  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    Regarding your question @boldfinger I think it was a cheap soap opera thing. For me it made no sense as well. It also cheapens the fascination Gimli feels when meeting Galadriel in LOTR, which was to be something unheard of.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited April 2014 Posts: 4,012
    I hate to break the news but here it goes. The last film of The Hobbit trilogy is no longer called There and Back Again :( Now it's called, prepare for it, The Battle of the Five Armies. Here's Jackson's FB post:

    Inside Information...

    Our journey to make The Hobbit Trilogy has been in some ways like Bilbo's own, with hidden paths revealing their secrets to us as we've gone along. “There and Back Again” felt like the right name for the second of a two film telling of the quest to reclaim Erebor, when Bilbo’s arrival there, and departure, were both contained within the second film. But with three movies, it suddenly felt misplaced—after all, Bilbo has already arrived “there” in the "Desolation of Smaug".

    When we did the premiere trip late last year, I had a quiet conversation with the studio about the idea of revisiting the title. We decided to keep an open mind until a cut of the film was ready to look at. We reached that point last week, and after viewing the movie, we all agreed there is now one title that feels completely appropriate.

    And so: "The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies" it is.

    As Professor Tolkien intended, “There and Back Again” encompasses Bilbo’s entire adventure, so don’t be surprised if you see it used on a future box-set of all three movies.

    Before then however, we have a film to finish, and much to share with you. It’s been a nice quiet time for us—Jabez and I happily editing away in a dark cave in Wellington—but those halcyon days are quickly coming to an end. It will soon be time to step into the light. Expect to see and hear much about The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies in the coming months.

    And there’s also The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Extended Cut, which we’re in the process of finishing, with over 25 mins of new scenes, all scored with original music composed by Howard Shore.

    It’ll be a fun year!


    Although his justification for not calling it There and Back Again makes sense as it was the second title of The Hobbit book calling it Battle of the 5 Armies doesn't make it much better. Should a battle name an entire filml? Besides that this seems like yet another way to diminish the importance of the titular Hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, in the trilogy since he was a minimal (if we might call it that, those who read the book will understand) intervention in the battle. It's like re-naming The Two Towers into Battle of Helm's Deep.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    A rumor floating around (that I think I first read about on IGN) that suggests the title change is Warner Bros. demanding a more "action-packed" title to get asses back in the seats after the supposed "under-performance" of Desolation of Smaug.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited April 2014 Posts: 13,355
    Yeah, a film which did only $50 million less...

    Anyway, the title change may work but it is odd. Hay, maybe There And Back Again does work better as a title for the trilogy as a whole.

    A trailer should be released soon. I'm looking forward to seeing it.
  • Agent007391Agent007391 Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, Start
    Posts: 7,854
    Samuel001 wrote:
    Yeah, a film which did only $50 million less...

    Anyway, the title change may work but it is odd. Hay, maybe There And Back Again does work better as a title for the trilogy as a whole.

    A trailer should be released soon. I'm looking forward to seeing it.

    I don't get where WB thought there was an "under-performance", but that's the rumor I read. I, personally, liked There and Back Again as the title of the final film.

    I'd laugh if, when the first trailer is released, it still has "There and Back Again" at the end, and then Jackson looks at the WB execs and says "Well, that's the title they know, we have to keep it. Battle of Five Armies is out."
  • Posts: 12,526
    Don't see the point of a title change? Everyone knows what it is? And what is about to happen? So the bums will be on seats without a doubt.
  • Posts: 5,767
    Sandy wrote:
    Should a battle name an entire filml?
    If the film mainly consists of the battle, why not :ar! ? But nevertheless, it sounds a bit awkward somehow. I read a few days ago the possible title, "Into the Fire", which probably doesn´t fit what´s going to happen so well, but anyway sounds way cooler.
Sign In or Register to comment.