The Hobbit

[Steve J]

They do look very Ghoulish to me and dare I say it rushed sculpts. Not a patch on the previous LoTR ranges.

[Techno]

Yep....
Far more 'ghoulish' than 'goblinoid'...to this old f*rts eyes
Cheers - Phil.

[petercooman]

Yes really can't get to the same level as the older ones. If you look at the rohirrim of the two towers set, they are just full of movement. These look like the statues at madame Tussauds...

But i have to admit, if you look at this trailer, they look quite like the movie versions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Hy6O682OGI

I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p

[Maenoferren]

I have not embedded it for peope who don't want spoilers :p

hopefully they havent read the book either , but based on what I have seen so far then that doesnt actually matter either

[Maenoferren]

Oh....

Anyway.....Let's hear what someone thinks of the film itself, when someone has the chance to go and see it.

I got this from the one ring forum:
This movie is really a deliberate prequel to the Lord of the Rings movie trilogy, rather than a straight adaptation of The Hobbit itself. It's narrative is designed in exactly the same way, relying heavily on backstory. The tone is pretty much the same while the characters largely correspond with the same archetypes - whereas Thorin is presented in the book as a slightly comical, pompous figure he's basically a 'True King' figure, like Aragorn, here. There is also a lot of visual and thematic references to Rings movies - a lot more than in the book, which reflects on the fact that The Hobbit was written way before Lord of the Rings came out, making such references pretty pointless!

The movie is long, like the original Trilogy, and ponderous in parts, although the action sequences, effects and amiability of the characters make up for it. For those wishing to explore the fuller reaches of the Middle Earth world, then this is the movie for them. New beasties, like Stone Trolls, Goblins (with a pretty good Goblin King), Spiders, Wargs (more wolf-like than before) Stone Giants and a Dragon are mixed with new characters and places. Radagast (the Brown Wizard) isn't quite as annoying as some have argued, although he is played for laughs. The visuals are a step above anything seen in the Rings movies too.

I questioned the need for a 'Trilogy' being made from such a short book, but in fact the narrative worked here, in and of itself, is as effective as what we saw in the original Trilogy. Taken as a movie in itself, without reference to anything else (hard I know), this movie is still light years ahead of any other fantasy franchise out there. As for the 3D and frame rate, I had sore eyes after nearly 3 hours of wearing glasses. Just sayin'.

[Paint it Pink]

People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.

I don't think the film makers can win this one.

[Luddite]

I notice also that The Hobbit is being released in 3 formats:

24fps
24fps 3D
48fps (it was filmed in this)

You know...i rarely go to the cinema in any case (cannot stand all the chatter, mobile phone abuse, etc.), but its becoming far too confusing now.

[Hertsblue]

People always complain that films leave stuff out of their favourite books. People complained that LOTR left stuff out and changed parts of the story as a consequence. Now people are complaining that the film is going to have stuff that wasn't in the book.

I don't think the film makers can win this one.

The film makers are going to make a zillion bucks out of this franchise. That's pretty darn close to winning, I think. 

[goat major]

I don't think the film makers can win this one.

Yep I think you're right. I'll watch the film and hope I enjoy it in its own right. However I don't think filmmakers can ever win - I don't recall ever seeing a film that did justice to the original book (I think the mediums are just too different). There are some great films derived from books (e.e. Bladerunner) but they often deviate from the novel. Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.

[Techno]

Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.

That is SO true !
The films never quite live to the images you have in your own mind do they ?.....

A handful of films I've seen have had massive input from the writers.....Whose written work I've thoroughly enjoyed !
On seeing the films, I've often sat there and thought.....No, no, no, no, no,....Character X doesn't look or talk like that....Such and such a place is completely different !...etc etc.

On re-watching the films I've almost always found them great...but if I re-read the books, I still think of the characters as 'my versions'.
Anyone else feel the same ?
Cheers - Phil.

[sebigboss79]

Seconded Techno / Phil.

Well for the figs. IF GW really dared continuity (Goblins = Goblins) they would naturally sell less of the new Goblins. Of course this cannot happen under any circumstances. Imagine what this world would come to if GAMERS were to decide WHAT to play or HOW....IMPOSSIBLE!!!!!

As for the movies I totally agree as well. The LOTR movies had a few different version but even the ultralong mega extended (add some superlatives here) Version had so much missing from the book(s) e.g. 2 hours with Beorn and so on. The "relationship" of Legolas and Gimli is different in the book etc etc.

Another movie that was "adapted" to a much lower experience (although awesome still) was Starship Troopers, or think of Jurassic Park. As much as I understand certain drama has to be entered / removed but the fundamental question is what kind of type are you. Do you prefer being entertained or rather active with your brain? Here is a case of  "to each its own".

[Serotonin]

I must be one of the only people that thought the LOTR films were better than the novels. The novels were like wading through treacle witrh all the "hey nonny nonny" songs every few pages. Im looking forward to the Hobbit. Ive just finished reading it to my son, and much like LOTR its over long and bloated and hopefully the films will improve on it.
I know its heresy but there it is. 

[FierceKitty]

Yep I think you're right. I'll watch the film and hope I enjoy it in its own right. However I don't think filmmakers can ever win - I don't recall ever seeing a film that did justice to the original book (I think the mediums are just too different). There are some great films derived from books (e.e. Bladerunner) but they often deviate from the novel. Even a great film series like the LOTR trilogy pales significantly compared to the version that's been in my head for nearly 40 years now.

Generally, I'm with you on this. Even Kubrick couldn't turn Lolita into a movie anywhere near the book (tho' with every other book he made a movie that was better, mind you). But there is one noteworthy exception: Peter Carew's Oscar and Lucinda is a good novel and a movie that remains true to the original and still works as a film.

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Marketing issues aside, HAS ANYONE ACTUALLY SEEN IT YET?
I've three mates who have,they all say it is breathtaking and wonderous, and well worth a visit.
I look forwards to stealing the redoubtable Mrs Lemmey away for a few hours to watch it during the school holidays!
Always I'm to a film with low expecations, that way you can never be disappointed!

[sixsideddice]

Got woken up this morning with breakfast in bed and chilled champaign... well, it is my Birthday   jeeeese 50 21 years old at last woooohooo  

Anyway, I`m being taken to see The Hobbit today at 3pm as a treat, so I`ll be able to give a (non spoiler) run down a bit later on.... can`t wait.

I thought it was being made into 2 films, is it really 3? The more Hobbit the better as far as I`m concerned  


Six