PDA

View Full Version : The Hobbit.



Raisor
12-21-2011, 08:34 PM
This. Is. Awesome.

http://youtu.be/G0k3kHtyoqc

Cyclone792
12-21-2011, 09:07 PM
Watched it earlier today and part of me actually wishes I didn't watch it because now it's going to be quite a long year waiting for this movie to come out. It simply looks amazing. Of course, it may actually inspire me to sit down and watch the LOTR trilogy again at some point this winter over the course of a couple days.

RonDunn95
12-22-2011, 12:27 AM
Yes, it is scheduled to be released on 14 December 2012.

reds1869
12-22-2011, 12:36 AM
Going to be amazing.

texasdave
12-22-2011, 12:55 AM
Yes, it is scheduled to be released on 14 December 2012.

You would think that with all the work they put into the movie that they would like it to run for longer than one week. :)

RonDunn95
12-22-2011, 01:56 AM
There are two parts, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again. The second part will be released on December 13, 2013

top6
12-22-2011, 12:57 PM
I don't know... I LOVE the LOTR movies, but The Hobbit is shorter than any of the LOTR books. Why are they stretching it out? How is it going to work? I'd say we should trust Peter Jackson, but King Kong and The Lovely Bones were both just awful, and to be honest I have issues with large parts of Return of the King (especially the ending, or multiple endings I should say).

That said, it was awesome to see them all again. And Martin Freeman is PERFECT, just perfect. I hope it is amazing.

top6
12-22-2011, 01:01 PM
Watched it earlier today and part of me actually wishes I didn't watch it because now it's going to be quite a long year waiting for this movie to come out. It simply looks amazing. Of course, it may actually inspire me to sit down and watch the LOTR trilogy again at some point this winter over the course of a couple days.

I'm sure you know this, but just to be sure, make sure you watch the extended editions. God they are so awesome.

pedro
12-22-2011, 02:18 PM
Hate to say it but this movie bored me me to death the first three times I saw it.

Nice cinematography though.

medford
12-22-2011, 03:00 PM
Watched it earlier today and part of me actually wishes I didn't watch it because now it's going to be quite a long year waiting for this movie to come out. It simply looks amazing. Of course, it may actually inspire me to sit down and watch the LOTR trilogy again at some point this winter over the course of a couple days.

Couple of days? Why not just watch them straight thru ya wuss :)

Actually, 3 winters ago, my wife was stuck home on a weekend stuck on a coach due to some minor pregnancy complications. Too top it off, once we got back from the ER mid morning, it started snowing about and dropped a good 6+ inches on us. Stuck to the coach all day, we noticed LOTR was running on TNT or TBS or something along those lines, commercials included. Having no where to go, no kid yet we ended up watching all 3 in a row. Didn't really plan to, just kind of happened.

Chrietic
12-22-2011, 05:37 PM
awesome :D

MikeThierry
12-22-2011, 05:41 PM
I never read the books. I know The Hobbit is a prequel but what is it about? Is it as dark as LOTR?

919191
12-23-2011, 02:46 AM
I never read the books. I know The Hobbit is a prequel but what is it about? Is it as dark as LOTR?

No, not at all. It is fine for children. Has a whole other tone.

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2011, 03:28 AM
Hate to say it but this movie bored me me to death the first three times I saw it.

Nice cinematography though.

Huh?


I'd say we should trust Peter Jackson, but King Kong and The Lovely Bones were both just awful, and to be honest I have issues with large parts of Return of the King (especially the ending, or multiple endings I should say).

I thought King Kong was decent enough. Agreed on Return of the King though. I thought it was by far the weakest of the trilogy--of course it's the one to win all the Academy Awards haha...

MikeThierry
12-23-2011, 04:26 AM
Huh?



I thought King Kong was decent enough. Agreed on Return of the King though. I thought it was by far the weakest of the trilogy--of course it's the one to win all the Academy Awards haha...

I always thought Two Towers was the weakest of the series.

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2011, 05:51 AM
I always thought Two Towers was the weakest of the series.

Oh but I love the ents and I love the ending! Excellent pacing and really sets the stage...

MikeThierry
12-23-2011, 02:51 PM
Oh but I love the ents and I love the ending! Excellent pacing and really sets the stage...

I guess what I hated about it was the portrayal of Sauron. In the first and third one, even though he was a giant eye it seemed to have character and was a mennacing type villian thing. In the second one, he just seemed like just a background figure that wasn't that dangerous. I don't know, just a weird observation on my part.

I also think the extended versions of the movies add a whole new element to the film. The Return of the King extended version is, in my opinion, way better than what was put on the screen.

pedro
12-23-2011, 02:55 PM
Huh?


I thought the were long, boring, and had a a certain "sameness" that just made them all kinda bleed together into a big formless blob. And jeez, they were in that cave FOREVER.

I guess I shouldn't be be surprised considering the source material . If you're going spend four pages describing a door I guess that's what you'll get.

Don't get me wrong, I thought they were visually beautiful films, they just weren't all that interesting to me.

Raisor
12-23-2011, 05:36 PM
I adore all three films, or I should say all three parts. Its one movie broken into three parts.

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2011, 06:47 PM
I thought the were long, boring, and had a a certain "sameness" that just made them all kinda bleed together into a big formless blob. And jeez, they were in that cave FOREVER.

I guess I shouldn't be be surprised considering the source material . If you're going spend four pages describing a door I guess that's what you'll get.

Don't get me wrong, I thought they were visually beautiful films, they just weren't all that interesting to me.

I assume you are talking about LOTR and not The Hobbit, which hasn't been released yet?

Caveat Emperor
12-23-2011, 07:36 PM
Hate to say it but this movie bored me me to death the first three times I saw it.

Nice cinematography though.

This x 1,000.

And I usually enjoy fantasy/sci-fi stuff.

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2011, 09:00 PM
Aaand now I get the joke. Well played Pedro, well played...

yab1112
12-24-2011, 01:10 PM
No, not at all. It is fine for children. Has a whole other tone.

Which is why I found this trailer a little odd. The tone of it certainly didn't match the lighter environment I remember from the book. Still looks frikkin awesome though :thumbup:

Will M
12-24-2011, 03:59 PM
I was excited when Del Toro was cowriter and director. when he had to leave the project due to endless delays Jackson took over as director. The Hobbitt book has a completely different feel than the Lord of the Rings books. its much more a kids book. the trailer looks just like the LOTR trilogy that Jackson directed. I would enjoy a Hobbitt movie. I'll enjoy a 4th & 5th LOTR movie less so.

Outlaw133
12-24-2011, 10:01 PM
I never read the books. I know The Hobbit is a prequel but what is it about? Is it as dark as LOTR?

J.R.R. Tolkien apparently created the whole of Middle Earth as a linguistic hobby. And wrote "The Hobbit" as a children's' story. When it exploded in popularity in the 1970's the LOTR quickly followed it into print as a "grown-up" continuation of the story. All are great reads in their own way. 'Bout time "The Hobbit" got the attention it deserves.

yab1112
12-25-2011, 06:02 AM
I remember there was an animated movie of The Hobbit that my mother used to rent from the library for me. It had this eerie music that scared the ever-living pants off me.

GAC
12-25-2011, 07:04 AM
I remember there was an animated movie of The Hobbit that my mother used to rent from the library for me. It had this eerie music that scared the ever-living pants off me.

Probably this one done by Bankin/Rass...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA0ODY3NTkwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODU3NzIyMQ@@._ V1._SY317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg

A lot of big name actors did the vocals....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/

GAC
12-25-2011, 07:07 AM
J.R.R. Tolkien apparently created the whole of Middle Earth as a linguistic hobby. And wrote "The Hobbit" as a children's' story. When it exploded in popularity in the 1970's the LOTR quickly followed it into print as a "grown-up" continuation of the story. All are great reads in their own way. 'Bout time "The Hobbit" got the attention it deserves.

Plus "The Hobbit" shows how the ring, the story behind it, which is the center piece of the whole series, first came into the possession of a Hobbit via Bilbo and then passed on to Frodo. It was the stage setter.

yab1112
12-25-2011, 04:12 PM
Probably this one done by Bankin/Rass...

http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMjA0ODY3NTkwOF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODU3NzIyMQ@@._ V1._SY317_CR3,0,214,317_.jpg

A lot of big name actors did the vocals....

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/

Yea, that's the one. I have to watch that again...

Literati
12-26-2011, 02:07 AM
You can actually watch the '77 version on youtube:
The Hobbit (1977) Movie Part 1/6 - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cj2ZaOcNpIw)

Does anyone know at which point in the story they are splitting it into the two movies?

919191
12-26-2011, 02:16 AM
Plus "The Hobbit" shows how the ring, the story behind it, which is the center piece of the whole series, first came into the possession of a Hobbit via Bilbo and then passed on to Frodo. It was the stage setter.

I would love a movie of The Silmarillion, to part concerning the Elves and the Silmirils.

GAC
12-26-2011, 09:10 AM
Does anyone know at which point in the story they are splitting it into the two movies?

I'd assume that since part 2 is titled "There and Back Again", which was the title of Bilbo's book about his adventures, that part 2 will center more on the diminishing role (aging) of Bilbo, and the "passing of the torch" to Frodo.

Literati
12-26-2011, 10:21 PM
I wasn't sure if it would be something like that or more of splitting the journey in half, like after Bilbo gets the ring from Gollum...

Will M
12-27-2011, 04:21 AM
I'd assume that since part 2 is titled "There and Back Again", which was the title of Bilbo's book about his adventures, that part 2 will center more on the diminishing role (aging) of Bilbo, and the "passing of the torch" to Frodo.

Here is what I would do: split the movie in two about the time they enter Mirkwood or maybe after the giant spider attack. Part 1 would have the trolls, the goblins, gollum & the werebear. Part 2 would have Mirkwood, the spiders, the wood elves, the mountain, the dragon & the big battle.

top6
12-27-2011, 01:37 PM
J.R.R. Tolkien apparently created the whole of Middle Earth as a linguistic hobby. And wrote "The Hobbit" as a children's' story. When it exploded in popularity in the 1970's the LOTR quickly followed it into print as a "grown-up" continuation of the story. All are great reads in their own way. 'Bout time "The Hobbit" got the attention it deserves.

This is sort of what happened, although it was actually the 1950s when LOTR was published.

Here is my understanding (which I only confirmed by browsing these (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lord_of_the_Rings) Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hobbit) articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion), so take it for what it is worth):

Tolkien started developing Middle Earth (and basically writing what would become The Silmarillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Silmarillion)) in 1914. He continued to work on it throughout his life. Essentially, this book was a history of Middle Earth, and although I have not even read the whole thing my impression and understanding is that it is basically the same in style as the appendix of Lord of the Rings: in other words, somewhat dry, VERY detailed, and with a heavy emphasis on languages (which is not surprising given that Tolkien was an English scholar at Oxford).

In the 1930s (by which time he was already a fairly established "serious" literary critic), he started writing The Hobbit, which was basically a children's story that took place in the same world (and wasn't really related to any of the main plots). It was first published in 1937, and was immediately popular. Importantly (well, if you are a dork like me and consider any of this stuff important), the first published version of The Hobbit did not place any emphasis on the importance of the ring, and in fact Tolkien in no way planned for the ring to play an important role in Middle Earth's history. In the first published version of The Hobbit, in fact, Gollum willingly gambles the ring with Bilbo in the riddle game, and willingly lets Bilbo take it when he has lost.

Due to The Hobbit's popularity, his publishers asked for a sequel. My understanding was that Tolkien basically said, "great news! I've got a wonderfully detailed history of this fictional land complete with made up languages and maps already written ready to be published!" The publishers basically said: "um, no, that sounds terrible, you're going to give us a book with more hobbits." This is what caused him to start writing The Lord of the Rings, which he started writing in the 1930s, which he wrote as one book, but which was ultimately published in the 1950s in three separate volumes. It was, again, immediately popular, and I believe today is the most popular book ever published (except The Bible).

However, the story of The Lord of the Rings required retroactive changes to The Hobbit. He therefore rewrote The Hobbit, changing the scene with Gollum so that Bilbo tricks him into giving up the ring (which is the version that everyone on this thread has almost certainly read, unless you are in possession of a very rare early edition). Apparently, this was somehow explained by Tolkien as the original version being a lie that Bilbo told so that it would not be clear how important the ring was to him.

Tolkien eventually started reworking the whole history of Middle Earth to make it consistent with The Lord of the Rings, but he never finished it. His son did, and it was published in various forms as The Simarillion in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, although from what I gather there are vigorous debates as to how much of this is actually Tolkien's (the dad's) work.

I think it's so interesting that he went back and changed The Hobbit. If someone did that today (like, say, for a TV show, or in A Song of Ice and Fire, or see the general reaction to Lucas's changes to Star Wars films), there would be widespread outrage. But the greatest storyteller of the 20th century (not the greatest author, but greatest storyteller, imo), realized it was much more important to tell a great and compelling story than it was to make a book consistent with something you published 20 years ago. There is an obsession now (see Lost, the aforementioned ASOIAF, basically every ongoing comic series), with making everything consistent with past volumes, and focusing on continuity and having a grand master plan, such that the basic art of telling a great story gets lost. Thank god Tolkien, despite his focus on the most mundane details imaginable, didn't have that obsession.

Reds/Flyers Fan
01-26-2012, 03:17 PM
Watched it earlier today and part of me actually wishes I didn't watch it because now it's going to be quite a long year waiting for this movie to come out. It simply looks amazing. Of course, it may actually inspire me to sit down and watch the LOTR trilogy again at some point this winter over the course of a couple days.

Or you could watch the LOTR extended version over the course of a few weeks. :laugh: