The Official "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" movie thread *SPOILERS*

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I thought the CGI looked decent but was overused. Imagine how badass Azog would look without the added CGI. That's what made them intimidating in LotR. Lurtz was actually frightening.


You literally say this about every movie.

No. But when your previous films are so dour and serious to a point that having fun is going against what the movie wants you to do, it's a very, very welcomed element.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

No. But when your previous films are so dour and serious to a point that having fun is going against what the movie wants you to do, it's a very, very welcomed element.

Eh, Lord of the Rings was fun. Watchoo talkin bout. It wasn't all srs business.

The antics of Merry and Pippin, Gimli, even Gollum, they were all very amusing. Fellowship has a great sense of adventure until Gandalf's "death".

Helms Deep? The kill count was great.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I thought I read that Bolg wasn't actually going to be in the trilogy? Maybe it was just the first movie. I swear I saw him in the flashback battle though.

If he is in the sequels I'm sure he'll be "enhanced" with CGI like the rest of them. Such a shame.

No. But when your previous films are so dour and serious to a point that having fun is going against what the movie wants you to do, it's a very, very welcomed element.

Then you're not watching them right. You can have fun without constant cheese and immaturity FYI.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Too serious for me. I just have the hardest time getting into them.

I did watch Fellowship a little bit back, and I enjoyed more then I did when I saw it opening day. Return of the King is probably my favorite, because it seemed to be 3 hours of action action and one liners.

 

[CelticPredator]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Then you're not watching them right. You can have fun without constant cheese and immaturity FYI.

You can't watch any movie right.

 

[Rzeznikk]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I hope Bolg isn't changed. He looks quite good.

I cant wait to see him. He looks like a Badass and I hope he is. Azog was frightening to me though even with the added CGI.

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

You can't watch any movie right.

Return of the King is probably my favorite, because it seemed to be 3 hours of action action and one liners.

...

 

[intothevoid]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

This is literally better than any creature I've seen so far in the Hobbit,

https://youtu.be/dY4V3UUY95A

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I miss the orcs and prosthetic. They actually had character. Goblin king was a hunk of ****, Azog is like an I Am Legend zombie.

There were plenty of Orcs and Goblins that were prosthetics in this movie. When you get massive wide shots there are tons of CGI but in the close up shots there are plenty of the other. They talked about it just a bit in the Weta Art book that they had to go in and redesign the Goblins because they ended up doing more men in suits than originally planned. Now, Azog and the Goblin King were not but I actually thought the CGI on those two looked awesome.

Shouldn't the goblins look like the Moria orcs from the Fellowship of the Ring? Legolas refers to them as Goblins and they're all from the Misty Mountains.

I don't think the orcs from Moria were all from the Misty Mountains. Goblins and Orcs are related but they're not the same according to what I've read. Distant counsin kind of thing.

Then how did the orcs walk in sunlight during the Hobbit? I thought only Uruk Hai and a few special orcs could do that?

Its orcs in sunlight that hunt the folks from Rohan in TTT and same scenario in The Hobbit.

I think they could and should have added a much more serious and 'epic' feel to it like LotR. Just my opinion, I understand the book isn't like that. That's my biggest issue with the film. I never felt the need to rise from my seat in awe, never felt much emotion for any of them or their purpose, etc.

Then it wouldn't be The Hobbit. It would be The Lord of the Rings redo. That's what I'm getting at when I say I think this was a failure of viewers for not understanding the difference between the two stories. You'll get some of that in the second movie with Smaug attacking Dale and then of course in the third movie with The Battle of the Five Armies. The Hobbit just isn't epic in the same vein as Lord of the Rings.

As for Thorin/Aragorn, it's exactly what you said. Thorin wasn't as impactful as him. It didn't have anything to do with Aragorn's higher status and more significant role for me, it's just how they were portrayed. How he was acted and written. I do think you can compare them though as they're both supposed to be the serious, noble leader of each group. They're both royal heirs. They both have the same attitude for the most part. I felt like Thorin was a very uninteresting and boring version of Aragorn. And he wasn't supposed to be.

They did a better job of making him more heoric/impactful than Tolkien did in the story. What Jackson added with the prologue and Balin's tale makes him better. Thorin is a bit of a jerk to be honest and much less Noble than Aragorn. Part of that is Thorin is bitter at the world and all its races for not helping the Dwarves. Richard Armitage did a brilliant job of acting IMO so I can't agree with you even in the slightest. You can compare them but you'd be wrong in doing so. They both do not have the same attitude. Aragorn in the movies is humble and resistant to becoming the King (book version is not quite as resistant to becoming king). Thorin knows he is the King and expects people to treat him as such. They're not the same at all. I think you felt that way trying to compare two characters that aren't the same.

The only shots of the eagles that I didn't think looked fake were the up close shots of the wings while Bilbo/Gandalf are riding them, and the talons when they dropped off Thorin. Every other shot looked really plasticy and CGI imo. More so than in LotR. I wasn't very impressed with the first shot of Smaug's nostril and the gold falling down his head, but the clear shot of his head looked fine. Those are the only bad CGI shots that caught me off guard. Everything else was great, especially Gollum who was just stunning. I'm still amazed at how life-like they made him look.

Got ya.

I thought his acting was dull and clumsy compared to LotR to be honest. That might be a bit harsh. I'd have to watch it again.

Got ya. Like I said I thought he was as good this time as last time.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I thought I read that Bolg wasn't actually going to be in the trilogy? Maybe it was just the first movie. I swear I saw him in the flashback battle though.

Dwaling smacks him with something at The Battle of Azanulbizar.

 

[DiFabio]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

The only CGI I was impressed with was Gollum/Smeagol and some of the Eagle shots. Gollum was just phenomenal. Better looking than the LOTR Gollum.

Azog did nothing for me, neither did any of the Goblins. They're designs and culture is all inferior to LOTR. LOTR had clear distinctions of orc races and cultures. Mordor Orcs, Isengard Orcs, Uruk Hai, black skinned Mordor Uruks, Prologue Orcs, Moria Goblins, etc.

There was CGI used, but only for huge group shots for armies, which is understandable. None of the close ups or talking Orcs were CGI in LOTR.

I don't think the orcs from Moria were all from the Misty Mountains. Goblins and Orcs are related but they're not the same according to what I've read. Distant counsin kind of thing.

Legolas sees their arrows and refers to them as Goblins. They live in the Misty Mountains. What else would they be?

Its orcs in sunlight that hunt the folks from Rohan in TTT and same scenario in The Hobbit.

But they were a new breed of orc by The Two Towers, must of which had the white hand of Saruman. Unless you mean the day light scene near the West Fold. That was a mix of Wild Men and Uruks.

 

[Irvy]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Funniest bits include radagast taking a hit of gandalf's pipe and getting high as **** Also that little dude asking if they had any chips

 

[intothevoid]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Funniest bits include radagast taking a hit of gandalf's pipe and getting high as **** Also that little dude asking if they had any chips

Loved those bits

 

[ExMem-LarjaThwei]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Then it wouldn't be The Hobbit. It would be The Lord of the Rings redo. That's what I'm getting at when I say I think this was a failure of viewers for not understanding the difference between the two stories. You'll get some of that in the second movie with Smaug attacking Dale and then of course in the third movie with The Battle of the Five Armies. The Hobbit just isn't epic in the same vein as Lord of the Rings.

I think that's a bit of a stretch. If PJ can add so much extra content from the appendices to The Hobbit without hurting it, I think the serious and dramatic tone of the first trilogy could be added without harming the story. No matter what it would still be more light-hearted than LotR due to sequences like with the three trolls.

They did a better job of making him more heoric/impactful than Tolkien did in the story. What Jackson added with the prologue and Balin's tale makes him better. Thorin is a bit of a jerk to be honest and much less Noble than Aragorn. Part of that is Thorin is bitter at the world and all its races for not helping the Dwarves. Richard Armitage did a brilliant job of acting IMO so I can't agree with you even in the slightest. You can compare them but you'd be wrong in doing so. They both do not have the same attitude. Aragorn in the movies is humble and resistant to becoming the King (book version is not quite as resistant to becoming king). Thorin knows he is the King and expects people to treat him as such. They're not the same at all. I think you felt that way trying to compare two characters that aren't the same.

He might have a different goal than Aragorn, but I felt that their basic personalities were very similar from what I saw of him in the movie. Like you said, they tried to make him more heroic/impactful. I never got the impression that he was supposed to be a jerk either. He just seemed rough and hardened. Like Aragorn.

I've only read the first chapter of the book but once I finish it maybe I'll be able to appreciate his on-screen character more.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

Azog did nothing for me, neither did any of the Goblins. They're designs and culture is all inferior to LOTR. LOTR had clear distinctions of orc races and cultures. Mordor Orcs, Isengard Orcs, Uruk Hai, black skinned Mordor Uruks, Prologue Orcs, Moria Goblins, etc.

Can't agree. Azog and the Goblins were great. The Orcs we saw riding the Wargs looked pretty darn cool as well.

There was CGI used, but only for huge group shots for armies, which is understandable. None of the close ups or talking Orcs were CGI in LOTR.

Like I said plenty of the Goblins are men in suits. The guy in the Weta book talked about how they had to go back all of a sudden and change some designs so they could be men in suits.

Legolas sees their arrows and refers to them as Goblins. They live in the Misty Mountains. What else would they be?

I think hes just using that as a Universal term to be honest. They're similar creatures but not exactly the same. The creatures living in Moria are considered Orcs but like I said they're similar creatures.

But they were a new breed of orc by The Two Towers, must of which had the white hand of Saruman. Unless you mean the day light scene near the West Fold. That was a mix of Wild Men and Uruks.

The Orcs riding the Wargs are just Orcs. Uruk-hai are created by Saruman but not the Orcs working for him.

 

[Biojex]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I agree on Azog and the Goblin King, I found their CGI very convincing. Gollum was on a whole different level though.

 

[gagaliya]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

the movie was good but they really stretched it too long with all the extra in the beginning that only belonged in the bluray extended ed, it should be a 2 movie series not 3. PJ soldout.

Hobbit is not lotr, it suppose to be a much narrower story and more action, the book is actually more fun to read than lotr as it's very action oriented. The movie failed to accomplish that in the first half but picked up in the second. So overall it's still okie, the second and third movie should get a lot more interesting.

 

[Irvy]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

If I met the goblin king I wouldn't be able to stop staring at his saggy throat thing. Would be like austin powers and the mole

 

[jye4ever]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I was gonna say the same thing

What, other than the very minor issues DiFabio pointed out I quite enjoyed TDKR.

 

[The Josh]

Re: The Official "The Hobbit" movie thread

I think that's a bit of a stretch. If PJ can add so much extra content from the appendices to The Hobbit without hurting it, I think the serious and dramatic tone of the first trilogy could be added without harming the story. No matter what it would still be more light-hearted than LotR due to sequences like with the three trolls.

Its not. Really its not. You go too far with making The Hobbit serious and its no longer that story. What's being added adds the proper seriousness for The Hobbit.

He might have a different goal than Aragorn, but I felt that their basic personalities were very similar from what I saw of him in the movie. Like you said, they tried to make him more heroic/impactful. I never got the impression that he was supposed to be a jerk either. He just seemed rough and hardened. Like Aragorn.

We will have to agree to disagree. They do not have the same basic personalities at all from my experience reading the books and seeing the movies. They did succeed in that at least how he was until things went really south for the Dwarves, but one you meet him in bag end he's becomes hardened/jerkish. Aragorn may look rough/hardened but he's still very kind and noble something Thorin is not.

I've only read the first chapter of the book but once I finish it maybe I'll be able to appreciate his on-screen character more.

Do yourself a favor and read the book.