Exilian

Off-topic and Chatter: The Jolly Boar Inn => Fandom Discussion - The Secret Garden => General Chatter - The Boozer => Tolkien & LOTR => Topic started by: Jubal on December 19, 2012, 11:22:53 PM

Title: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 19, 2012, 11:22:53 PM
Okay, what did everyone think?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 20, 2012, 12:26:43 AM
It's not The Lord of the Rings, but I'll take it. ;)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 20, 2012, 01:17:42 AM
pretty good, shame about the eagles
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Cuddly Khan on December 20, 2012, 05:07:13 AM
Watching it in 10 days... don't spoil it for me. :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 20, 2012, 09:35:23 AM
Good but definitely could have been better, too much ridiculousness and the escape from the goblin caves got a bit boring.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 20, 2012, 10:00:51 AM
Good but definitely could have been better, too much ridiculousness and the escape from the goblin caves got a bit boring.
Too true, but then it was intended to be a kid's book, and they aren't supposed to be saving the world a la LOTR, so I can let it slide.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 20, 2012, 12:24:34 PM
That wasn't what made it boring, the boring was the running away scene where it was stupidly unrealistic. Also would have been nice if they had more of the songs from the book, I loved the scene where the dwarfs put plates and stuff away.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Son of the King on December 20, 2012, 03:05:04 PM
That Gollum scene :D
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 20, 2012, 08:10:14 PM
anyone else think the goblin who gollum eats was rather scary?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 21, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
Sad at the lack of the ridiculous elf songs from Imladris certainly.

Radagast was done well in terms of character, still not sure about his transport.

Most annoying point? Gandalf asks Elrond if he still reads old dwarfish

1) It's Dwarven, or Khuzdul, not "Dwarfish"
2) There is only one form, as set out by Durin
3) Of course he can't bloody read it, the Dwarf language is secret
4) The moon-runes are elvish.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 22, 2012, 02:06:59 AM
How the hell did Radagast get from wherever he was east of the Anduin all the way west of Imladris with his stupid rabbit go-cart in like two days??
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on December 22, 2012, 06:23:59 AM
Hey don't diss rabbit carts. They look pretty fast to me. :P

(http://i.imgur.com/CyIzb.jpg)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 27, 2012, 12:06:31 PM
How the hell did Radagast get from wherever he was east of the Anduin all the way west of Imladris with his stupid rabbit go-cart in like two days??
A wizard is never late... :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: fez-fez on December 27, 2012, 05:42:05 PM
I love the way Bret McKenzie from Flight of the Conchords has a speaking part in the hobbit as the elf 'Lindir' ... when he plays another elf in LOTR who was fan-named 'Figwit' and he's going to be in the next two movies also! Maybe he's trying to be in every movie...jealous much!!

Plus there's this flight of the Conchords song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=GB&v=SWf3iJjqYCM&hl=en-GB





Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 27, 2012, 05:51:33 PM
All hail Figwit!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: SaidaiSloth on December 27, 2012, 09:24:13 PM
Seeing it in a few days :)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Marcus on December 28, 2012, 04:00:04 AM
Planning to see it with my pa soon, so don't spoil all the details eh? I only read the beginning of the book, lost interest and moved on to something else, so I'm not 100% sure what happens.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Othko97 on December 28, 2012, 08:22:11 PM
Saw it today. It was pretty awesome.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on December 29, 2012, 04:07:24 PM
Alright, Ladyhawk and I saw it today.

It was awesome. When it started I even began tearing up a little. THE MUSIC!

WHEEEE MIDDLE-EARTH! :D
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 29, 2012, 08:18:08 PM
On a middle earth film note, is anyone else watching The Return Of The King on ye olde television right now?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 30, 2012, 12:38:20 AM
My television is not the same as yours, but I did make my GF watch The Fellowship of the Ring (Extended) today. ;D
*tears*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 30, 2012, 04:22:31 PM
My television is not the same as yours
:o what sort of devilry is this?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on December 30, 2012, 04:29:44 PM
A Balrog of Morgoth, a demon of the ancient world....

But Penty, you did get Boromir's line wrong. :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 30, 2012, 04:33:19 PM
What line is that?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on December 30, 2012, 04:46:23 PM
"What is this new devilry?"

Fellowship of the Ring, as the goblins are fleeing from the Balrog in Moria. ;)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 30, 2012, 04:50:42 PM
Ah I was unaware I was nearly channeling the spirit of Beanomir.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 30, 2012, 05:03:14 PM
Ah I was unaware I was nearly channeling the spirit of Beanomir.
Quick! Stop channelling it before you die due to some ill-contrived plot twist at the hands of a B-list enemy!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 30, 2012, 05:16:22 PM
Winter is ... ah crap now I'm channeling the spirit of Nedobean.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 31, 2012, 12:29:03 PM
For England James!

oh wait that's Travelyebean
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 31, 2012, 05:40:50 PM
Oh yeah I forgot, did anyone else think the wargs were too big? I always imagined them as being the size of a huge dog (eg great dane) not as bigger than a bloody warhorse.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 31, 2012, 10:39:02 PM
I thought they were a good size in TTT (albeit a little too hyena-ey). In the book it does say that orcs rode them like horses, so it'd have to be bigger than a huge dog.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 31, 2012, 10:55:05 PM
i thought they were bigger than wolves as they are meant to be big enough to be ridden by orcs and could talk
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 31, 2012, 11:06:08 PM
Isn't it just goblins who ride them though? Yeah they're meant to be bigger than wolves but actual wolves are fairly dog sized.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Ladyhawk on January 01, 2013, 04:02:55 AM
I thought the Wargs were perfect. I have just recently read the book and Peter did rather well I thought. They are trying to stretch out a small book over three movies. Which is good for fans because it means Lord of the Rings won't truly be over for another two movies. You guys are being too picky :P

Lord of the Rings had differences to the books. Many differences. Its just this book is alot smaller so the differences stand out more.

The Rabbits were cool anyway :D I thought it was very fitting for Radagast.
When reading the book I always pictured them to be large. To be honest, in the movie, they looked different to the Wargs in the Two Towers. The Northern Wargs were far more wolf like than the Isengard Wargs. Their faces were not as triangle shaped and compacted. They were also a bit smaller. Except maybe the white one. (She was cool :D It looks like a she. So it is. )

My only problem were the three mountians fighting with each other. As cool as it was, I was a little confused, because it was just giants throwing rocks at each other wasnt it? Not actual living mountain creature thingys.

But all in all, I really liked the movies. It still had the Lord of the Rings feel :) I believe they did a very good job :)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on January 01, 2013, 09:18:23 AM
They were rock giants or stone giants or whatever, they were very very briefly mentioned in the book during the storm in the misty mountains.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on January 01, 2013, 10:49:58 AM
i thought they were storm giants in the book, hurling lightening and boulders at each other
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on January 01, 2013, 03:03:16 PM
Just reread the first part of the book recently, and later on Gandalf talks about how he might like to ask one of the giants to seal up the goblin's secret entrance. So... I dunno.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on January 01, 2013, 03:30:12 PM
They aren't really described anywhere in any of Tolkein's books that I read.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on January 01, 2013, 04:02:23 PM
I would have preferred them as more standard humanoid giants, I must admit.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on January 01, 2013, 07:46:11 PM
I think I prefer them as metaphors.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on January 06, 2013, 03:38:14 AM
Agreed with Ladyhawk and Jubal.

Although the fact that giants were not mentioned at all in LotR leads me to think that Tolkien just wanted to forget about them. :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on January 06, 2013, 11:28:59 AM
The alternative argument is that Giants were a species native to the northern regions of Middle Earth - Angmar, the northern Misty Mountains, and northern Eriador - in which case after the first few chapters of LOTR the protagonists were in any case far away from Giant country.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Phoenixguard09 on January 06, 2013, 01:06:35 PM
Well of course. But I still think Tolkien changed his mind. :P

That or the giants were similar creatures to those found in the old Battle for Middle Earth game, which I enjoyed as an aside.  I think overall, if giants exist, I will mentally erase the bit where Gandalf states some are friendly and continue to think of them as living, organic creatures.

Not living mountains, which I feel is just a little too much outright magical stuff for my liking.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 17, 2013, 05:37:10 PM
Plan on seeing part 2 this evening.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 17, 2013, 05:50:01 PM
I'm hopefully seeing it with Penty, DD, and No1CFan on Thursday  :)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 17, 2013, 06:01:15 PM
I'll try not to give out any spoilers. :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 17, 2013, 08:20:26 PM
please don't, somebody told smaug dies, FILMS RUINED
*end sarcasm*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 17, 2013, 09:04:32 PM
SPOILER! Saruman eventually goes evil!!!11!!1!

SPOILER! The ring is evil!11!!1

SPOILER! Smaug doesn't get to marry Gandalf!11110101!
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 17, 2013, 09:23:18 PM
But they'll always have that one crazy night together.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 17, 2013, 09:32:26 PM
You know you've had a good party when...  :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Cuddly Khan on December 18, 2013, 07:27:08 AM
...How many people here have read the book? Or haven't?
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 18, 2013, 09:24:13 AM
i've read it several times
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 18, 2013, 05:54:40 PM
Have read.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 18, 2013, 06:01:34 PM
*Is legitimately the Steward of Gondor*
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 18, 2013, 11:10:28 PM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LdBZ1QwLDpA/USICk1_XY9I/AAAAAAAALTs/NlNzbjhwkZ0/s1600/denethor.gif)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 18, 2013, 11:25:57 PM
I'm just on fire this evening.  ;)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 18, 2013, 11:31:59 PM
(http://nerdjerseypodcast.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Elrond-Facepalm.jpg)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 18, 2013, 11:48:30 PM
I can just sense you... glow-ering at me.  :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 19, 2013, 12:00:32 AM
(http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/ElrondBS.jpg)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 19, 2013, 12:09:38 AM
I'm sorry, I'm probably getting to be a flaming nuisance already.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 19, 2013, 12:18:58 AM
(http://www.imfdb.org/images/thumb/7/74/MatrixDesertEagle-4.jpg/600px-MatrixDesertEagle-4.jpg)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 19, 2013, 12:25:09 AM
Stop!

...don't fire!

 ;D
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 19, 2013, 12:29:55 AM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JmvAaKdF_W0/T3Z98k4zBaI/AAAAAAAACE0/S3ipso0Iblw/s1600/Agent-Smith-in-The-Matrix-agent-smith-24029746-1360-768.jpg)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Gen_Glory on December 19, 2013, 09:23:07 AM
(http://i.minus.com/ibpxqYWVGGIMkD.gif)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 19, 2013, 10:22:04 PM
Well... after-match report.

The good:
- Stephen Fry as the Master of Lake-Town was excellent
- Ditto for Bard and The Cumbersmaug
- Lake-town and Mirkwood were both great in terms of scenery

The bad:
- Goddamnit they did not read my papers on Dwarf history. That armadillo was factually incorrect.
- Love triangle. What?
- Love triangle. This deserves at least two points because what.
- Action scenes got too zany at times.

All in all, decent fantasy film, worse than Part 1 as a book adaptation. The stuff with Beorn's house should have been longer and more developed, the love triangle cut right out, and probably actually more Lake-Town would have been nice. Less Elves generally, silly pointy-eared pansies.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 19, 2013, 11:26:54 PM
YES. Good now I can talk about it. :P

Totally disappointed with Beorn. I was looking forward to the whole entrance thing where Gandalf keeps him preoccupied with talking while more and more dwarves stroll in, but no, we just wake up the next morning and he's pouring everyone some rancid milk and telling them to piss off.

Love triangle is totally useless. Kili is a bitch. I think Pete (possibly with pressure from wife and Phillipa) is getting back at the fans for (rightfully) not letting them have Eowyn engaged in battle at Helm's Deep like they had first planned. So now they make up whatsherface and do the love triangle with now-creepy-looking-legoland and Kilo.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 19, 2013, 11:32:01 PM
I don't mind Tauriel existing even, just get rid of the goddamn love triangle and it would be an admittedly non-canon and slightly superfluous but actually not too terrible character. You may well be right on motivations, though I think more generally they wanted to not have a feature film with no named female characters in it. And yeah, Dwarfs with beardlessness fetishes are just frankly odd.  :P

And yes, the entrance to the Carrock is a scene that would have worked fantastically and I was really, really disappointed about the lack of it. I think it would have worked well with the actors too.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Son of the King on December 20, 2013, 11:47:15 AM
You summarised my entire opinion on it in your post Jubal.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 20, 2013, 12:17:51 PM
I failed in my post.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Pentagathus on December 20, 2013, 12:45:05 PM
I would agree with most of Jubal's post, except that I would not say it was a decent film. It was a bad film. Pretty portugaling disappointing considering that it could have easily been a very good film.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Scarlet on December 20, 2013, 01:37:07 PM
I can't say you're all convincing me to go and see it... :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 20, 2013, 02:11:05 PM
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Pent. Even though they are stretching one tiny book out to three films they really haven't taken the time to dwell on any one thing making it feel too fast-paced.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Son of the King on December 20, 2013, 03:41:20 PM
I'm somewhat inclined to agree with Pent. Even though they are stretching one tiny book out to three films they really haven't taken the time to dwell on any one thing making it feel too fast-paced.

This exact thing. Three films gives them enough runtime to be incredibly faithful to the book and to do everything really well, but instead its been rushed through for the sake of action sequences...
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 22, 2013, 11:08:50 PM
We need an Exilian version.  :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 22, 2013, 11:20:56 PM
I'll get right on it.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Silver Wolf on December 22, 2013, 11:38:34 PM
I still haven't seen part 1. :/

I kind of want to see them all at once. And the other problem is that I think that it won't fulfill my expectations.
Everything looks so much sillier than LotR.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 22, 2013, 11:40:10 PM
There is silliness, but it's the bits of characterisation that don't fit that's what actually jars. For me at least.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 23, 2013, 01:27:57 AM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/962302720/h6E0EC1DF/)
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Jubal on December 30, 2013, 11:34:46 PM
And yet after all this, I'm still looking forward to part three.  :P
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on December 31, 2013, 01:24:03 AM
Let's just get it over with.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Clockwork on September 30, 2014, 10:33:19 AM
NECRRRROOOOOO... Did not like either of them. Legolas had half the screen time, scenes were too reliant on CGI, Legolas had half the screen time, the dwarves are all idiots, Legolas got half the screen time, Elf/Dwarf romance subplot, LEGOLAS HAD HALF THE SCREEN TIME! Riding a wheelbarrow down a stream of molten gold, dwarves are experts in the martial art of barrel fighting, cliche 'oh no dwarf is dying, oh no he isn't' which we knew, because we read the book. The orc bad guy is the wrong one.

The one saving grace was James Nesbitt. Would see again just because he's awesome.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on September 30, 2014, 02:51:58 PM
I tend to agree.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Lady Grey on October 01, 2014, 01:15:07 PM
I thought Part 1 was alright (Misty Mountains was perfect - if a little short :P )

Part 2 though... I just will never understand the addition of Tauriel :/ If the idea was to get more of a female audience for the films, I don't know, I find that a bit insulting (as if I'm not going to watch a film because there's no element of romance in it). And the actual love triangle? Really?

Also, I feel like there's things that won't add up because Legolas in in the Hobbit films now. I saw a post somewhere ages ago, about Gandalf in Fellowship, and how Legolas seems overwhelmed in that scene because, having been in Mirkwood most of the time, he's not really experienced that kind of grief, and seeing everyone else mourning is almost something new to him. Yeah, it's probably just fan speculation, but it does seem it's very much acted that way, and having Legolas in the Hobbit movies means that kind of becomes meaningless.

I still am going to go and see Part 3 though :P 
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: comrade_general on October 01, 2014, 01:59:43 PM
Let's just get it over with.
Title: Re: The Hobbit
Post by: Clockwork on October 02, 2014, 06:16:11 AM
That is in the books iirc, Legolas feeling grief for the first time.

Yeah I'll still watch 3 and then all of them once they come out as special edition blu-ray.

3 should be good though, less slaughtered narrative, more slaughtered orcs.