Org Mobile Site
Thread: The Hobbit (Movie)
So, what do you think from the trailer you have seen? Also, has anyone been watching the Video Blog?
Am I the only one who is more than a little concerned at the cheap, burlesque portrayal of the almost-anime-looking Dwarves? Also, why in flying-&*#$'s sakes did they change Gandalf's? staff? Are we to believe that between the Hobbit and the LotR he was given a new staff?
That said though, a lot of people have been giving them heat for the singing, but I for one think it was excellent. People forget that they are not supposed to be professional singers. It is supposed to just be ordinary people singing. Songs and poetry were a huge part of the Hobbit, and it would be wrong not to feature it in the movie.
So what's your opinion?
Am I the only one who is more than a little concerned at the cheap, burlesque portrayal of the almost-anime-looking Dwarves? Also, why in flying-&*#$'s sakes did they change Gandalf's? staff? Are we to believe that between the Hobbit and the LotR he was given a new staff?
That said though, a lot of people have been giving them heat for the singing, but I for one think it was excellent. People forget that they are not supposed to be professional singers. It is supposed to just be ordinary people singing. Songs and poetry were a huge part of the Hobbit, and it would be wrong not to feature it in the movie.
So what's your opinion?
The trailer makes it seem that while it will be a great fantasy movie, it does not have that...unique LotR feel it. More like a regular fantasy epic.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
Originally Posted by rajpoot:
The trailer makes it seem that while it will be a great fantasy movie, it does not have that...unique LotR feel it. More like a regular fantasy epic.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
I agree. I will definitely still watch it, and will probably like it/not mind it, but I think it is missing that touch that the LotR had: subtlety. LotR (at least the first two films...the third one lost that touch too I think) portrayed things in a subtle, and realistic (for the fantasy setting) way, trusting to the viewer to understand and appreciate it. Return of the King lost that almost completely, and it looks like this will too. If I could name one thing that made LotR so much different (and so, so much better) than other fantasy movies out there, it would be subtlety. (not that awesome visuals didn't help, but again, their subtlety was one of their strengths that made the visuals so appealing)The trailer makes it seem that while it will be a great fantasy movie, it does not have that...unique LotR feel it. More like a regular fantasy epic.
Still it will be nice to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again.
And yeah I find that song quite fitting with the mood.
First off, it is a teaser trailer - note that nothing is really said or shown about the story other than Bilbo is supposed to go on an adventure. I thought the dwarve's song was excellent and just like I'd expect to hear from a dwarf, kind of a deep droning. It looks like there may be a light-hearted feel to it like the book as there was a brief shot of the dwarves cleaning up the dishes ("Because that's what Bilbo Baggins hates!"). I'm anxious to see what Smaug looks like - I'm expecting to be wowed after the job they did with the balrog and the ents.
I didn't notice Gandalf's staff was different, but I can't believe it won't be explained somehow in the movies if they have gone to the trouble to change it. There are a couple of opportunities in the movies for Gandalf to have lost his "old" staff - the Battle of Five Armies and his trip to Dol Guldor the find out about the Necromancer, but I don't believe the loss of his staff are mentioned in any of Tolkien's writings. At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
I'm still quite excited about the movies.
I didn't notice Gandalf's staff was different, but I can't believe it won't be explained somehow in the movies if they have gone to the trouble to change it. There are a couple of opportunities in the movies for Gandalf to have lost his "old" staff - the Battle of Five Armies and his trip to Dol Guldor the find out about the Necromancer, but I don't believe the loss of his staff are mentioned in any of Tolkien's writings. At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
I'm still quite excited about the movies.
Originally Posted by Gregoshi:
At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
One of the things I do like about Jackson in regards to this franchise is he always does something for a specific reason in order to advance the story telling of the books, even if its doing something outrageous and contrary to what happened in them. Elves at helms deep to show the elves were still in the fight, despite their fight occurring "off camera" in the book comes to mind as the biggest example of that.At the same time, I wonder why Jackson would see fit to change the staff if it was not written by Tolkien as it is such trivial thing.
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Maybe I am just a hardcore, but I cannot help get upset when they go and change something like that with no apparent reason. It is not going to make or break the movie, but it still ticks me off.Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
I beg to differ. In a gay man, I think, his staff is what others will look at first off. Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
Originally Posted by Monk:
Elves at helms deep to show the elves were still in the fight, despite their fight occurring "off camera" in the book comes to mind as the biggest example of that.
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.Elves at helms deep to show the elves were still in the fight, despite their fight occurring "off camera" in the book comes to mind as the biggest example of that.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Maybe I am just a hardcore, but I cannot help get upset when they go and change something like that with no apparent reason. It is not going to make or break the movie, but it still ticks me off.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?Maybe I am just a hardcore, but I cannot help get upset when they go and change something like that with no apparent reason. It is not going to make or break the movie, but it still ticks me off.
Originally Posted by Gregoshi:
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
Exactly. I'm not so much of a purist to think the movie should follow the book exactly. Elves at Helm's Deep had a much greater emotional impact and fit better into the elves' departure. The quicker they show up and fight, the quicker you can move the departure story. I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
I'm more worried about the massive number of dwarves reducing the film to a parody of itself. Gimli was great but a bunch if miniature Scotsmen running around may be too much. Producers need to account for visual impact and Peter Jackson's portrayal received a great amount of praise from hardcore fans. I'm confident in his abilities. (Is he directing this???)
The real question is, what the 
is that scene with Galadriel touching Gandalf's hair all about?
is that scene with Galadriel touching Gandalf's hair all about?The staff isn't that much different. Still a gnarled wood staff, slightly different at the top. The original prop probably got gifted to someone or lost.
Hobbit had a hobbit, a wizard and a dozen dwarves.
It was also far more a children's tale.
It was also far more a children's tale.
Agreed. Hobbit will not be similar to Lord of the Rings. Atleast i hope so. Because the feel of it is a lot more fantastical and much less gloom, doom and valor.
I must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
I must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Stop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
I had to do it, click at your own considerable risk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4QAlt4Sfl7QStop looking at a gay man's staff and enjoy a wonderfully produced movie with an epic story.
OT it will at least by worth your time
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Originally Posted by Martok:
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Yes, because female elves are hot!As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
You know I don't think hot is the correct term. I mean had there been a Megan Fox Galadriel, that might've been hot.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Originally Posted by rajpoot:
You know I don't think hot is the correct term. I mean had there been a Megan Fox Galadriel, that might've been hot.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Semantics. They all mean "want to have sex with."You know I don't think hot is the correct term. I mean had there been a Megan Fox Galadriel, that might've been hot.
Cate Blanchett is just beautiful.
Double
Originally Posted by Gregoshi:
I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
I am actually currently re-reading the books as well. (not the Hobbit, though I should have started there since the movie is coming out. :P)I was thinking about that just yesterday (I'm re-reading the books right now). Just to nit-pick, the elves would have most likely sent help to Minas Tirith to fight Sauron, not Helms Deep.
This is why I'm wondering if there will be a story element in the movies to explain the change in staff - the LotR staff was already made, so why make a new one if not necessary?
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Exactly. I'm not so much of a purist to think the movie should follow the book exactly. Elves at Helm's Deep had a much greater emotional impact and fit better into the elves' departure. The quicker they show up and fight, the quicker you can move the departure story.
I'm more worried about the massive number of dwarves reducing the film to a parody of itself. Gimli was great but a bunch if miniature Scotsmen running around may be too much. Producers need to account for visual impact and Peter Jackson's portrayal received a great amount of praise from hardcore fans. I'm confident in his abilities. (Is he directing this???)
Exactly, while the Hobbit is a much more light-hearted book, the Dwarves were a bunch of battle-hardened exiles who were traveling in a group of only 13 to retake Erebor. These guys are pretty darned cool and pretty capable. (not to mention confident) Jackson was able to use Gimili for more light-hearted moments in LotR without making fun of him or cheapening his character extensively. From what I see in the trailer is seems like Jackson is making fun of the Dwarves and trying to portray them in a very silly way. That is not right at all. The men, Hobbits, and elves got their chances to shine in LotR; this should be the Dwarve's chance. He should not be making fun of them and belittling them.Exactly. I'm not so much of a purist to think the movie should follow the book exactly. Elves at Helm's Deep had a much greater emotional impact and fit better into the elves' departure. The quicker they show up and fight, the quicker you can move the departure story.
I'm more worried about the massive number of dwarves reducing the film to a parody of itself. Gimli was great but a bunch if miniature Scotsmen running around may be too much. Producers need to account for visual impact and Peter Jackson's portrayal received a great amount of praise from hardcore fans. I'm confident in his abilities. (Is he directing this???)
(and yes BTW, it is Jackson directing)
Originally Posted by drone:
The staff isn't that much different. Still a gnarled wood staff, slightly different at the top. The original prop probably got gifted to someone or lost.
No, actually, it is quite different. It looks like a cheap flame spiral made of wood. Don't get me wrong though, that is actually not my objection, my objection is that it is quite noticeably different...and it should not be. Also, I highly doubt that the original was gifted or lost and those good craftsmen could not easily recreate it.The staff isn't that much different. Still a gnarled wood staff, slightly different at the top. The original prop probably got gifted to someone or lost.
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube:
The tone shouldn't be too similar to LoTR. The Hobbit had a very differently feel to it, much more whimsical and fantastic (though it did have some serious parts). I like what i've seen.
I agree that the Hobbit movie should feel a lot different, but I don't think that parodying the Dwarves and portraying them as ridiculous is the best way to do that. I also don't think that cheap, anime-like make-up and costumes help at all.The tone shouldn't be too similar to LoTR. The Hobbit had a very differently feel to it, much more whimsical and fantastic (though it did have some serious parts). I like what i've seen.
Originally Posted by atheotes:
I must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
QFTI must say i am not impressed with the dwarves' make up. looks artificial when compared to Gimli.
Originally Posted by Martok:
As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.As others have pointed out, The Hobbit has a different feel than the LotR trilogy (although for me, no less enjoyable), and I wouldn't expect that to be any different for the film versions thereof. I'm very much looking forward to them.
(I just don't see why Jackson had to invent a female elf character out of whole cloth. Is adding seemingly superfluous gender variation truly necessary to driving the story?)
Originally Posted by Vladimir:
Yes, because female elves are hot!
lol Vlad, Arwen looked like a horse and Galadriel like a skeleton! Jackson's casting choices were absolutely awful for the female elves. The woman, Eowen, who was not supposed to be nearly as pretty was sooo much hotter.Yes, because female elves are hot!
I maintain that hot and beautiful are two entirely different things. (But that relative, as are most things, depending on the person in question)
Beautiful does not necessarily mean hot IMO. To me it means grace. The kind of stuff that makes one want to write poems...or at least wish that they could write poems.
Like Vuk said, and I agree, Miranda Otto seemed hot to some degree.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is simply beautiful (I don't think she looks skull like. Although she should probably cover those ears
). To me atleast.
Originally Posted by :
They all mean "want to have sex with."
This for me, is a definition of hot.They all mean "want to have sex with."
Beautiful does not necessarily mean hot IMO. To me it means grace. The kind of stuff that makes one want to write poems...or at least wish that they could write poems.
Like Vuk said, and I agree, Miranda Otto seemed hot to some degree.
Cate Blanchett as Galadriel is simply beautiful (I don't think she looks skull like. Although she should probably cover those ears
). To me atleast.Originally Posted by Vuk:
No, actually, it is quite different. It looks like a cheap flame spiral made of wood. Don't get me wrong though, that is actually not my objection, my objection is that it is quite noticeably different...and it should not be. Also, I highly doubt that the original was gifted or lost and those good craftsmen could not easily recreate it.
Hobbit trailer - cheap flame spiral made of wood, Fellowship - cheap flame spiral made of wood No, actually, it is quite different. It looks like a cheap flame spiral made of wood. Don't get me wrong though, that is actually not my objection, my objection is that it is quite noticeably different...and it should not be. Also, I highly doubt that the original was gifted or lost and those good craftsmen could not easily recreate it.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
I agree that the Hobbit movie should feel a lot different, but I don't think that parodying the Dwarves and portraying them as ridiculous is the best way to do that. I also don't think that cheap, anime-like make-up and costumes help at all.
I think the problem with all the dwarves is reference. In the LotR movies, the hobbits and Gimli could be shot at angles to diminish their height against the other characters. With The Hobbit, there won't be tall humans and elves in frame very often, so we will be comparing them (human sized actors) against scenery and themselves. Not sure he pulls it off, in the trailer at least.I agree that the Hobbit movie should feel a lot different, but I don't think that parodying the Dwarves and portraying them as ridiculous is the best way to do that. I also don't think that cheap, anime-like make-up and costumes help at all.
Originally Posted by Vuk:
Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.
I could see why both would be in the movie, but bit roles at best. Legolas is Thranduil's son, so his presence in Mirkwood is logical. Galadriel could be visiting Rivendell. But major roles, no.Why is Galadriel and Legolas in it? Because rather than sell his movie off its own merit (or lack thereof, as time will only tell), Jackson or the movie's producers are trying to sell it on the LotR success, thus they bring back the characters people are used to. If you ask me, it is a really bad idea. Even if he pulls it off alright (which we have yet to see), it would still be better without it.
Originally Posted by drone:
Hobbit trailer - cheap flame spiral made of wood, Fellowship - cheap flame spiral made of wood
Look again. The one in LotR has twisted, knotty branches on the top, and if they are supposed to resemble fire, it is in a very abstract way. It comes across as looking a lot more like a naturally occurring piece of wood than the one in the hobbit, which looks like it was perfectly sculpted to look like flames and not anything that could naturally occur. If it was not wooden like Saruman's, or made of carved wood like Gandalf the White's that would be one thing. The way it is portrayed though is as if wood naturally grew perfectly into the shape of a spiraling flame. It does not look at all like it was carved like Gandalf the White's. Maybe I am nit-picking, but it looks cheaper to me. As I said though, my primary objection is that they changed it, not what they changed it too.Hobbit trailer - cheap flame spiral made of wood, Fellowship - cheap flame spiral made of wood
The dwarves' song is haunting...I've listened to like a hundred times....
I wish they'd put the entire song in the movie...
I wish they'd put the entire song in the movie...
The dwarves in the Hobbit (book) are quite comical. The scene with the trolls is humorous.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
The dwarves in the Hobbit (book) are quite comical. The scene with the trolls is humorous.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
You are right, the dwarves did and should add a lot of humor, but not in a way that belittles them so. They look less like a group of hardcore warrior dwarves getting drunk and partying and more like a group of 5 and 10 year olds on Sesame Street. Did I forget to mention their ridiculous, cheap appearances?The dwarves in the Hobbit (book) are quite comical. The scene with the trolls is humorous.
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
So whilst the movies aren't 1:1 with the books. The dwarves in the hobbit book are far more funny the Gimli in LoTR book.
After all one wandering dwarf is a lot more pathetic then a hardcore group of dwarves. One is a hobo the other is a drunken party.
Originally Posted by Papewaio:
They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
Tom Bombadil (sp?) would have ruined the movie. The quest would suddenly become meaningless when they ran into what is essentially Tolken putting himself into the story. Oh an entity that has been around since middle earth began? And he is so superior to everyone else the ring is meaningless to him? Yeah, audiences wouldn't have understood the significance.They dropped the most powerful entity in LoTR movie from the book... Tom da Bomb.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO