The Hobbit films, previously to be directed by Guillermo del Toro and now to be directed by Peter Jackson again.

I guess what was most unsettling was that they found the guy who could most approximate aragorn's screen presence while also being short to play thorin

Armitage is actually six foot two. Movie trickery, gotta love it...

Anyway to my honest surprise this thing seems to be actually gaining a little steam based on the box office returns, even after the expected drop off over the second weekend. My initial impression really was that it just was too out and out OTT to have a chance to come close to Fellowship, say, but it seems like it is, while plenty of people I know who don't know the story said they loved it.

also did christopher lee and peter jackson make up?

Based on the LOTR documentaries that happened during the publicity tour for ROTK in Copenhagen, so there ya go.

i had so much fun seeing this. Serkis and McKellen were better than ever and worth the price of admission by themselves and then there was a lot of other great stuff besides them.

I'm glad the consensus is positive, the only person I know who didn't enjoy it IRL is my brother, who has been getting all boring Tolkien purist about it. And I suspect he liked it more than he'll admit.

i respect the opinions of the people who are well versed in the books and have issues w/ these as adaptations (and someday i will reread The Hobbit/finish LOTR) but just as movie magic spectacles i love the LOTR trilogy and this feels right in step with those, if with different strengths/weaknesses in spots. so people who liked the previous movies but not this one confuse me.

The tone's a good deal more frivolous, if you like your fantasy all portentious and brow-furrowed I can see this might not hit the spot for you. Conversely my Dad, who was bored stiff by LOTR, thought this was a hoot.

yeah but that seems like a response to the difference in source material, although yeah i guess that would provide different opinions of the films nonetheless

If anything Jackson's found a way to make the stories even more consistent that Tolkien ever managed. Tolkien never did a full rewrite of the Hobbit -- he started once but it soon gave out -- but he retconned a chunk of it, mostly to do with Gollum, for an edition in the mid-sixties that's now the standard one.

the dwarves reminded me of travolta in battlefield earth

Tolkien never did a full rewrite of the Hobbit -- he started once but it soon gave out -- but he retconned a chunk of it, mostly to do with Gollum, for an edition in the mid-sixties that's now the standard one.

― Ned Raggett, Friday, December 28, 2012 7:59 PM (30 minutes ago)

Mostly to do with the ring iirc... originally the ring was just a magic trinket more or less, not THE ONE RING.

http://i.imgur.com/Xjtv3.gif

My new favorite gif.

some of the comic relief made me grit my teeth but man this movie was fun

also it helps to think, when you're watching this, that you're just marathoning a tv series, doesn't feel long at all

except for the year between episodes

My mates are seeing this today. Even though I've seen it already I'm jealous I can't go

also did christopher lee and peter jackson make up?

― 乒乓, Friday, December 28, 2012 5:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Well, he did have Gandalf and Galadriel talk telepathically or whatever during most of Lee's dialogue, which was pretty hilarious.

except for the year between episodes

seasons, my man, year between seasons

Woah, really? There was an old Christopher Lee sci fi movie called Starship Invasions where he also speaks telepathically, and it's pretty funny.

I didn't know Christopher Lee and Peter Jackson had a falling out... anyone have a link on the story? Certainly Lee couldn't have been upset that he was playing a villian... did he get screwed out of money or something?

Nvermind I found it... funny that I don't remember his scenes being cut in ROTK because I have only been watching the extended editions for the past 6 years or so and there's plenty of Lee action in the extended cut.

http://static.winterdrake.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/hobbit2.png

I don't often do See Image Info but that one had me right clickin' in a second.

This was pretty dire. Started off well, but once they hit the road it went to shit. Absolutely loved the riddle scene though; no surprise that Serkis tore it up and Freeman finally became Bilbo, if only for that short while.

Once I noticed that the pale orc looked like Peter Garrett in a muscle suit I couldn't take him seriously.

throughout the whole movie I was sitting there thinking "damn, they spent all this money on this and it still looks fake as hell"

Serkis should get a damn oscar nod already imo

As a nerd, I enjoyed this movie. But I can't say I'd recommend it to the average person on the street.

I got up to pee while the dwarves were singing and washing dishes. When I got back, that was still happening.

Still, I may go catch it in IMAX as I personally love to be submersed in these fantasy worlds. The original novel is a great story, but has that annoying "I'm reading this aloud to my grandson" tone. So I'm personally all for interjecting more mythos into the story.

Bottom line: Rankin & Bass did it better, even if they abridged it in the process.

I got up to pee while the dwarves were singing and washing dishes. When I got back, that was still happening.

new board description

It was funny to me at the time ass well.

At least I have good instincts about when to pee!

christopher tolkien gave his first ever interview this year:

Invited to meet Peter Jackson, the Tolkien family preferred not to. Why? "They eviscerated the book by making it an action movie for young people aged 15 to 25," Christopher says regretfully. "And it seems that The Hobbit will be the same kind of film."

This divorce has been systematically driven by the logic of Hollywood. "Tolkien has become a monster, devoured by his own popularity and absorbed into the absurdity of our time," Christopher Tolkien observes sadly. "The chasm between the beauty and seriousness of the work, and what it has become, has overwhelmed me. The commercialization has reduced the aesthetic and philosophical impact of the creation to nothing. There is only one solution for me: to turn my head away."

I think he is far, far overestimating the effect Jackson's films will ever have on the way people read these books.

I think the key point is more how people won't read the books when they have the movies!

that's part of what I mean, I think he's being way too pessimistic about that.

Time will tell. As someone who has pretty much everything he's overseen and edited of his father's work, I shall some of his pessimism.

No matter how prominent the films are, we're talking about the most popular novels in the world...

And the films have made book sales skyrocket. Though when you realize how much money the Tolkien family is being cheated out of, it sort of puts his attitude in perspective.

cheated? heirs pffft

Is he not overstating the beauty, seriousness and philosophical etc of his father's books somewhat? Tolkien was a scholarly writer, granted, but artistically not exactly Nabakov.

that was my first thought

Knowing what I know of the family and all, I think CJRT is extremely glad of that very fact!

tolkien isn't at that level exactly but maybe 'writing as good as nabokov' isn't the greatest way to judge an author. he's a pretty major writer in a lot of ways (how many other authors basically invented a new genre?) and he clearly took his own work seriously. not surprised christopher feels protective of his dad's work since he's basically devoted his life to it.

dunno about that genre invention thing

i know you can point to all sorts of precedents but the specific kind of fantasy literature that came after JRRT seems pretty different from anything that came before.

true, he's definitely a demarcation point

people 15 to 25 you say

saw this tonight and actually dug it way more than i expected to. the rivendell stuff was interminable and i could've done without one or two of the protracted battle scenes (and most of the prologue) but everything else was awesome. actually pretty scary in places, much moreso than i would've expected.

the gollum scene knocks it out of the park -- SO good.

can't wait for 6-part silmarillion series

This movie was largely crap, with a moment or two of not crap. Things:

1) Considering the giant evil white orc was one of the lamest things about "Return of the King," it's a shame they added another, let alone one that looked like a Thundercat.

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20081123044821/thundercats/images/3/3d/Panthro.jpg

2) I felt that the scale was off with this one. I could never figure out the height relationship of dwarves, hobbits, goblins, trolls and orcs.

3) Could they not afford dwarf make-up for that one last human-looking dwarf?

http://cdn1.screenrant.com/wp-content/uploads/Kili-the-Dwarf-The-Hobbit.jpg

4) That first hour should have been released as a stand-alone tease over the summer, then the rest better paced and fleshed out.

5) So they just literally stumble upon Rivendale? Not on the map, I guess.

On the plus side, I didn't mind all the prequel portent, because otherwise nothing is at stake.

pretty sure Gandalf lead them to Rivendell deliberately while pretending it was an accident

But how did the dwarves, arch-rivals of the elves, not know they were headed straight for Rivendale? That would be number one on my dwarf list of places not to go.