Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Any fans of the Hobbit movie???

Options
  • 24-10-2013 9:07am
    #1
    SilSil
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭


    Hi all!!!

    I am a big fan of Tolkien, so I feel pretty excited about the upcoming premiere of the second part of the Hobbit movie dance.gif

    Are there any other fans? What are your expectations, did you like the first part?

    Please do share your mood! :P


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    If you're a big Tolkien fan then you would be disgusted with the treatment Peter Jackson and co have given to The Hobbit. I've seen the trailer to the second film and Legolas is in it for christs sake. There's a reason why the Tolkien estate want nothing to do with Jackson, he doesn't care about the source material only $$$$$$$$.


  • Options
    #3
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I haven't read it, but always thought it was accepted that Jackson followed the LoTR trilogy closely. Saw the Hobbit part 1 and thought it was an overlong movie, with some truly dodgy CGI in parts.


  • Options
    #4
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I haven't read it, but always thought it was accepted that Jackson followed the LoTR trilogy closely. Saw the Hobbit part 1 and thought it was an overlong movie, with some truly dodgy CGI in parts.

    Close enough. The character of Faramir was completely wrong and my main issue with the trilogy.


  • Options
    #5
    SilSil
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭SilSil


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    If you're a big Tolkien fan then you would be disgusted with the treatment Peter Jackson and co have given to The Hobbit. I've seen the trailer to the second film and Legolas is in it for christs sake. There's a reason why the Tolkien estate want nothing to do with Jackson, he doesn't care about the source material only $$$$$$$$.

    Wow, why so negative? :)

    However, the book is a story for children, with a slightly flat plot. It will be interesting to see how Peter Jackson will re-create it. Unfortunately the first part was sooo unnaturally stretched... now will see what follows :D


  • Options
    #6
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Isn't it true that the second part is actually based on a short story that Tolkien wrote and not about the Hobbit itself as such?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    SilSil
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭SilSil


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Isn't it true that the second part is actually based on a short story that Tolkien wrote and not about the Hobbit itself as such?

    Actually I haven't heard about it, but it worth checking this out! :)


  • Options
    #8
    razorblunt
    Registered Users Posts: 17,300 ✭✭✭✭razorblunt


    I liked the trilogy, never read the books so no comparisons to be made. But I dislike the milking of the cash cow for three movies for the Hobbit. The first was very poor.

    Alot of the story is cheapened even in the Trilogy by silly stuff like, legolas surfing down the steps shooting arrows, the running count of dead bodies (was this in the book?) and then in the Hobbit the chase through the mines.


  • Options
    #9
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    razorblunt wrote: »
    I liked the trilogy, never read the books so no comparisons to be made. But I dislike the milking of the cash cow for three movies for the Hobbit. The first was very poor.

    Alot of the story is cheapened even in the Trilogy by silly stuff like, legolas surfing down the steps shooting arrows, the running count of dead bodies (was this in the book?) and then in the Hobbit the chase through the mines.

    I think so.

    I like the LOTR trilogy, I found the Hobbit to be soulless though, mostly down to how artificial it all looked. at least with LOTR there was a great blend of practical and digital effects. The Hobbit had that too but everything had this awful digital sheen to it, compared to a much grimier looking LOTR trilogy.


  • Options
    #10
    Driveby Dogboy
    Site Banned Posts: 257 ✭✭Driveby Dogboy


    the only bit of The Hobbit that held my attention was the bit with Gollum, a bit of a darker feel to it, I never looked into it, but i've a feeling that Guillermo del Toro had more of a hand in that than other parts of the film.


  • Options
    #11
    Agricola
    Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Agricola


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    If you're a big Tolkien fan then you would be disgusted with the treatment Peter Jackson and co have given to The Hobbit. I've seen the trailer to the second film and Legolas is in it for christs sake. There's a reason why the Tolkien estate want nothing to do with Jackson, he doesn't care about the source material only $$$$$$$$.

    Dont think thats very fair to Jackson. He and his writers are huge Tolkien fans. But they are in the business of making movies not simply filming every line of dialogue from a book. It's a different medium and a different audience.

    I personally found the first Hobbit film souless too. Jackson will jazz it up for cinematic effect and to instill urgency into it, but it still falls flat compared to the LOTR trilogy. The plot is at the end of the day for a child audience and bar throwing out the source material completely it will never have the same punch as the earlier films.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    mayordenis
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 9,634 Mod ✭✭✭✭mayordenis


    honestly I enjoyed it, you can't just straight up use the book's plot and character dynamics in a film, it has to be adapted, that's why they're called adaptions, and the LOTR trilogy was always more suited to a film that the Hobbit trilogy.

    I agree that some of the film looked pretty poor, but it was enjoyable, you have to remember that your 12 years older now than when LOTR came out, so what's epic and awesome to you then, and now are different things. I think cynacism, old age, and advancing technologies are making people think the hobbit is worse than it really is.


  • Options
    #13
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    The Hobbit is a fantastic little book aimed directly at children. It's basically the dwarves meet at Bilbos, the 3 trolls, Goblins & Gollum, Eagles,
    a scary forest full of spiders (Mirkwood), Dwarves get kidnapped by elves, Smaug the Dragon, the battle of the 5 armies, the end.
    It's a book that can be read in a couple of sittings. Saruman & Galadriel are not in it, neither is Radagast the Brown who is turned into an idiot in the film. The one armed Orc is not in it. There is no love story. It should be 2 films at most. The Hobbit is mainly for the people who liked the special effects in the LOTR films and definetely not for fans of the great professor.


  • Options
    #14
    grey_so_what
    Registered Users Posts: 19,749 ✭✭✭✭grey_so_what


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I haven't read it, but always thought it was accepted that Jackson followed the LoTR trilogy closely. Saw the Hobbit part 1 and thought it was an overlong movie, with some truly dodgy CGI in parts.

    Ditto!......

    I don't know how three films are to me made of it tbh....

    I was disappointed with the film overall, maybe the second will win me over...


  • Options
    #15
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Agricola wrote: »
    Dont think thats very fair to Jackson. He and his writers are huge Tolkien fans. But they are in the business of making movies not simply filming every line of dialogue from a book. It's a different medium and a different audience.

    I personally found the first Hobbit film souless too. Jackson will jazz it up for cinematic effect and to instill urgency into it, but it still falls flat compared to the LOTR trilogy. The plot is at the end of the day for a child audience and bar throwing out the source material completely it will never have the same punch as the earlier films.

    So is Frank Darabont and he made films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist which are even better than the stories they were based on.


  • Options
    #16
    The_Pretender
    Registered Users Posts: 594 ✭✭✭The_Pretender


    Love Jackson logic:

    1000 page book = 3 super long movies

    276 page book = 3 lightly less super long movies


  • Options
    #17
    Outkast_IRE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,516 ✭✭✭Outkast_IRE


    I have read the hobbit and LOTR.
    I enjoyed the LOTR films immensely, when I seen the hobbit last year in the cinema I didn't enjoy it as I thought the 3d was distracting during the action sequences and I found it hard to focus.
    After rewatching it when it came out I enjoyed it much more sitting at home.

    I am looking forward to the 2nd part of the hobbit. I don't compare it with the book, both are almost completely separate entities at this stage.


  • Options
    #18
    SilSil
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭SilSil


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    It should be 2 films at most.
    Yep, but it's all about earning money. It always has been, unfortunately...


  • Options
    #19
    adox
    Registered Users Posts: 19,018 ✭✭✭✭adox


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    So is Frank Darabont and he made films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist which are even better than the stories they were based on.

    Woah woah woah, thats very debatable. Rita Hayworth And The Swawshank Redemption was a brilliant read, as was The Mist.

    I`d agree they were both great adaptations but better than the source material? Debatable at best.


  • Options
    #20
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    SilSil wrote: »
    I am a big fan of Tolkien so I feel pretty excited about the upcoming premiere of the second part of the Hobbit movie

    I'm a huge Tolkien fan, but I'm just Meh about the movie.

    In the LotR movies, Jackson did a good job with the bits of the book he put on screen, and did a good job cutting the story down to fit by leaving out bits. But the stuff he and his co-writers invented was shockingly bad.

    With the book of The Hobbit being so short, there is no need to cut anything this time, but Jackson is going to town inventing nonsense to pad it out to a trilogy and drag in fans of the LotR movies.


  • Options
    #21
    MRnotlob606
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,642 ✭✭✭MRnotlob606


    seee freisk und labbenhaser und von geriud


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    adox wrote: »
    Woah woah woah, thats very debatable. Rita Hayworth And The Swawshank Redemption was a brilliant read, as was The Mist.

    I`d agree they were both great adaptations but better than the source material? Debatable at best.

    Yeah but Darabont adapted them brilliantly. The Shawshank novella is pretty short and the movie did a great job of adapting it, a few minor changes like Red being an actual red headed Irish guy and not black and more than one warden in the time Andy is in jail but aside from that it's spot on. And King has said he preferred Darabont's ending for The Mist and wish he'd thought of it first.

    There are a few movies which were better than their book counterparts, Jaws and The Godfather to name but two, awful books, classic films.


  • Options
    #23
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    I thought The Godfather was a brilliant read but the film was definetely better.


  • Options
    #24
    Agricola
    Registered Users Posts: 6,547 ✭✭✭Agricola


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    So is Frank Darabont and he made films like The Shawshank Redemption and The Mist which are even better than the stories they were based on.

    Well call me an unwashed pleb but my feeling on it would be that the LOTR film adaptions are better than the book. I saw the films first and then went about reading the book and I found it a chore. Im not saying its bad, its just that the plodding pace and writing style (which Tolkien fans obviously love) really didnt appeal to me. I would think that for many 'neutrals' the film is more like the book they would actually like to read.

    On a different topic, it is funny how they were working with a 1000 page book for the first trilogy and Jackson and co had to fight with studios to NOT make just one movie. They then negotiated to making 2 movies, before New Line came in and agreed that 3 was necessary!
    Now they have a short children's book as the source which could easily be done in 2 films but they were possibly pushed into doing a trilogy by most studios due to pure greed!


  • Options
    #25
    Tipsy McSwagger
    Registered Users Posts: 9,068 ✭✭✭Tipsy McSwagger


    Agricola wrote: »
    Well call me an unwashed pleb but my feeling on it would be that the LOTR film adaptions are better than the book. I saw the films first and then went about reading the book and I found it a chore. Im not saying its bad, its just that the plodding pace and writing style (which Tolkien fans obviously love) really didnt appeal to me. I would think that for many 'neutrals' the film is more like the book they would actually like to read.

    On a different topic, it is funny how they were working with a 1000 page book for the first trilogy and Jackson and co had to fight with studios to NOT make just one movie. They then negotiated to making 2 movies, before New Line came in and agreed that 3 was necessary!
    Now they have a short children's book as the source which could easily be done in 2 films but they were possibly pushed into doing a trilogy by most studios due to pure greed!

    You're an unwashed pleb.


  • Options
    #26
    SilSil
    Registered Users Posts: 53 ✭✭SilSil


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    I thought The Godfather was a brilliant read but the film was definetely better.
    My impressions were completely opposite. I almost fell asleep while watching the movie.


  • Options
    #27
    Mickeroo
    Administrators, Computer Games Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 32,268 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭Mickeroo


    krudler wrote: »
    Yeah but Darabont adapted them brilliantly. The Shawshank novella is pretty short and the movie did a great job of adapting it, a few minor changes like Red being an actual red headed Irish guy and not black and more than one warden in the time Andy is in jail but aside from that it's spot on. And King has said he preferred Darabont's ending for The Mist and wish he'd thought of it first.

    There are a few movies which were better than their book counterparts, Jaws and The Godfather to name but two, awful books, classic films.

    How did King's version of The Mist end? The film's ending knocked me for six, I assumed it was taken straight from the book.

    Regards the Hobbit, first wasn't awful imo but was pretty poor at the same time and very little actually happened in it. There's a lot more stuff to cover in the next 2 so I'm hoping they'll make for better films.


  • Options
    #28
    astrofool
    Registered Users Posts: 16,666 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    The_Pretender wrote: »
    Love Jackson logic:

    1000 page book = 3 super long movies

    276 page book = 3 lightly less super long movies

    I'd imagine LOTR would be a 5-7 movie stretch if they knew how successful it would be, Hollywood has moved away from mere trilogies since LOTR was made.


  • Options
    #29
    Princess Peach
    Registered Users Posts: 11,698 ✭✭✭✭Princess Peach


    I hated the Hobbit movie. One of my favourite books and I sat in the cinema asking where in the name of God did they get half this stuff from? Some of it felt like LOTR the Reunion.

    The parts that were true to the story were great, such a lovely sentiment to some scenes, but the feeling was then ruined by some random scene thrown in for no good reason but to pad it out and make more cash.


  • Options
    #30
    McLoughlin
    Registered Users Posts: 1,909 ✭✭✭McLoughlin


    The_Pretender wrote: »
    Love Jackson logic:

    1000 page book = 3 super long movies

    276 page book = 3 lightly less super long movies

    Your wrong The Hobbit film is the Hobbit book plus extras from The Lord of The Rings book


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Mickeroo wrote: »
    How did King's version of The Mist end? The film's ending knocked me for six, I assumed it was taken straight from the book.

    The Mist book spoilers obv
    after they leave the store they keep driving until they hear a radio broadcast saying just "Hartford" so head there, it's all left open as to what happens after that


Advertisement