› ›

The Hobbit (2012 - 2014)

1…910121415

Comments

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    Haha, perhaps, @boldfinger. ;-)

    I've seen mostly positive reviews coming in. There was one on slashfilm that praised everything about the film, then the reviewer said he didn't like the pacing, and it ended up with a 6.5/10. Not sure how that works out, but it's the only "bad" review I've seen so far.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    boldfinger wrote:
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @boldfinger, I did, I just don't recall it being pronounced that way. Not even sure where I got 'Smog' from, I guess it's just how I said it once and I went from there.
    Perhaps you got it from the way it´s written ;-)?

    For me it has always been pronounced this way, "Smaúg". I had no idea some people said "Smog", for me it makes no sense.
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    'au' in English (American English) is sometimes (often?) pronounced: "aw" or "ah" however I can best spell that for you. Which is the same sound as in "smog".

    pauper
    slaughter
    haughty
    naughty
    caught
    taught
    daughter
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    Posts: 4,012
    The thing is Smaug is not an English word ;)
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Yes, but I was just explaining that reading it, an American may easily use the one kind of interpretation they know best. I personally (and here I boldly proclaim my ignorance of other languages) would not know how to pronounce a letter with an accent mark (or whatever the correct name of that mark is) over a 'u'. I've never been taught that. So I do understand why folks, when they are reading it, would simply pronounce it to themselves as "Smog."
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    So...I is no smart? :-/
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited December 2013 Posts: 4,012
    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/
  • 4EverBonded4EverBonded the Ballrooms of Mars
    Posts: 12,480
    Thank you, Sandy. Honestly, that helps but it's still a bit tricky for me to follow, as a and u separately do not sound like the ou in ouch (when I read your post) - for example, the a in father and the a in raw sound exactly the same with my pronunciation ... but at least now I know to pronounce the name Smaug as the ou in ouch. So I do appreciate it, thanks! :)>-

    I am actually interested in correct pronunciation, but I never feel like taking the time away from the story I am reading to stop and go look up pronunciation.
  • SandySandy Somewhere in Europe
    edited December 2013 Posts: 4,012
    Hope this chart can help (though I'm afraid it won't) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPA_vowel_chart_with_audio

    EDIT: This one is actually better: http://www.yorku.ca/earmstro/ipa/diphthongs.html Now I hope we can move on to another subject.
  • 00130013
    Posts: 1,817
    I think that pronouncing Sindarin is much easier for Spanish or even Portuguese speakers than for English speakers.
  • boldfingerboldfinger
    Posts: 5,767
    Creasy47 wrote:
    So...I is no smart? :-/
    Don´t worry @Creasy, we´re all as dumb as you are ;-).
    I hope that was discernible as a joke ;-).
    Sandy wrote:
    (yes, I know it's boring, but I just love it).
    No need for shame @Sandy, phonetics rock!

  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    edited December 2013 Posts: 11,139
    Just came back from seeing DoS. It's an incredible movie; better than AuJ. The action is great, everything felt more epic in scope and Legolas is the definition of badass. The only complaint I have is, the film should have been 15minutes longer! That's right, Longer!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 40,963
    @boldfinger, haha, it was, no worries.

    @doubleogo, WITHOUT spoiling anything, how was the cliffhanger? I hear it's amazing.

    EDIT: It appears the film grossed $8.8 million at midnight:

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=112482
  • MrBondMrBond Station S
    Posts: 2,044
    @Creasy47 the spoiler is quite mediocre to be honest. You hope for more, even though it set's up the next film brilliant!

    The more i think about Desolation, the more sceptical i feel. I have to re-watch it soon!
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    @MrBond, all I heard was that the cliffhanger was great. I know the ending of AUJ really made me crave more, so I'm hoping this film does the exact same thing. I might end up seeing it this weekend. I know my girlfriend wants to see it, but if she's going to be busy for the next few weeks, I won't spend that time treading through spoiler-infested waters, I'll just go see it by myself or something.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Creasy47 wrote:
    @boldfinger, haha, it was, no worries.

    @doubleogo, WITHOUT spoiling anything, how was the cliffhanger? I hear it's amazing.

    EDIT: It appears the film grossed $8.8 million at midnight:

    http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=112482

    Mate, the ending was epic, the whole film was just superb.

  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    Good, now I'm even more excited for it. I'm seeing this film in theaters no matter what, it'll be my first Tolkien film in theaters, I guess you could say. Didn't catch up on the LOTR craze until a few years ago, and I missed 'The Hobbit: AUJ' in theaters, sadly.
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    Did you like AuJ? If you did, you're going to love DoS. The action and set pieces are great and the film ticks all the boxes of a fantasy epic but that's just my opinion. Some people really dislike these hobbit movies but to each their own.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 13,355
    If you watch The Hobbit first, followed by The Lord Of The Rings these films will just keep getting better as you go.

    What do people make of the decision of making three films now, having seen two?
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    I loved AUJ, so it sounds like I'm in for the exact same treat with DOS. I'm really excited for it, and I agree, it seems like most seem to not care for 'The Hobbit' films but love LOTR. I love both, so I'm sure I'll be satisfied when I do see it.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    If there is the same level of improvement between this and the next film, There And Back Again would be on par with The Lord Of The Rings. I'd like to know what some critics would say then.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    On topic of two or three 'Hobbit' films, here's where Peter Jackson said he would've split 'The Hobbit' had it been two movies. Spoilers are involved, I suppose, I haven't read the article:

    http://www.slashfilm.com/heres-where-peter-jackson-would-have-split-the-hobbit-had-it-been-two-movies/
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    Posts: 13,355
    This is where I'd heard it would be. Many thought that scene would come at the start of film two but it doesn't come until a long way into the film, so I suppose it's better that there are three if only not to lose so much of what was shot.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    Going off of what you're saying and if that had been the case, it sounds like they would've scrapped a whole lot of footage.
  • Samuel001Samuel001 Moderator
    edited December 2013 Posts: 13,355
    Jackson says in the audio clip you posted that structurally it wasn't quite working as two films and three films also allowed for a clearer beginning, middle and end. The idea was his, not Warner Brother's as so many think it was up to them for a quick cash grab. He says it was about how to best service their already shot adaptation of the novel.
  • Creasy47Creasy47 In Cuba with Natalya.Moderator
    Posts: 40,963
    It's good for fans to know that, then, that it was the director's choice. I'd much rather have three full films to give a better layout of the journey and the story than two films that leave out a lot, raising tons of unnecessary questions.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Saw it this afternoon and it is magical.

    Nice to see movies where teh money spend can be seen on the big screen.

    And Evangeline is even more sexy with those lovely ears. :\"> :x
  • doubleoegodoubleoego #LightWork
    Posts: 11,139
    It really is a magical film. I loved the
    Sauron is the Necromancer reveal
    at Dol Guldor.
  • SaintMarkSaintMark
    Posts: 7,653
    Yes, that was positively amazing.

    For me the visuals, the pacing of the story and the content of the movie make it easily the movie I enjoyed best this year. Jackson still knows how the make a big spectacle movie and I am curious how the 3rd one will be.

    The movie did contain some nice referals to LOTR, and Legolas & Tauriel actionscenes were easily close to brilliant.
  • GerardGerard
    Posts: 5,993
    Don't forget Bombur and the barrel.

    But yes, a very, very good movie. There's so many things I would like to say about i, but unfortunately, I couldn't do it without revealing some major spoiler. Anyway, I enjoyed it very much.

    BTW : Evangeline Lilly as the next Bond Girl. Who's with me ?
Sign In or Register to comment.