It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Emob78: And Gandalf the white was boring as shit. He was boring in the books too, so that isn't really Jackson's fault. Another reason Fellowship is better. Gandalf the gray got lost sometimes, he was mischievous and liked to pull pranks, and he was actually an interesting character with human qualities.

Gandalf the white sat around on his horse and barked orders at people and generally acted stuffy and preachy. Again, Fellowship for the win. I'll take Gandalf the gray any day over General Gandalf mcdullboring.
avatar
Elmofongo: But Gandalf the White did do this awesome thing: Chaging head first with Rohirrim behind him in the finale of the Battle of Helm's Deep.
By the time of Two Towers, Gandalf had become a plot device, not a character. The Rohirrim was as much lead by Aragorn and Éomer as it was by Gandalf. A goddamn ham sandwich could have lead the charge at Helm's Deep.
the saga is coming to an end
avatar
Elmofongo: AND THE HOBBIT MOIVES IS NOT AND WILL NEVER BE THE STAR WARS PREQUALS OF THIS GENERATION!
avatar
javier0889: a D&D campaign.
That was the whole point of the song Misty Moutains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BEm0AjTbsac
BUMP, Trailer 2 shows more:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVAgTiBrrDA

Its such a fucking shame that I might end up in Surgury and recovering in bed and I won't get to see this in theaters (along with Paul Thomas Anderson's Inherent Vice)
avatar
javier0889: Especially because they are a rather faithful adaptation of their source material. It's not like The Hobbit is a gr1md0rk book, it's practically a D&D campaign.
avatar
Elmofongo: One thing that they are not like Star Wars is that they don't have thier own Jar Jar and no Radagast is nothing like Jar Jar, heck Middle Earth already has its own Jar Jar and his name is Tom Bombadil and guess what they cut him out enturely in Lord of the Rings.

The only unfaithful things in the Hobbit movies so far is the additions like the Tauriel and Legolas among other things. If you cut them all out, you would have even more faithful adaption.
I don't remember the white goblin villain in the book, In fact, he is not there at all. I only saw the first movie though.
avatar
Elmofongo: One thing that they are not like Star Wars is that they don't have thier own Jar Jar and no Radagast is nothing like Jar Jar, heck Middle Earth already has its own Jar Jar and his name is Tom Bombadil and guess what they cut him out enturely in Lord of the Rings.

The only unfaithful things in the Hobbit movies so far is the additions like the Tauriel and Legolas among other things. If you cut them all out, you would have even more faithful adaption.
avatar
advancedhero: I don't remember the white goblin villain in the book, In fact, he is not there at all. I only saw the first movie though.
The White Goblin (who is Azog the Defiler and an Orc mind you) Exist in the Tolkein Legendarium, but in the Hobbit book he was already truly dead.
avatar
advancedhero: I don't remember the white goblin villain in the book, In fact, he is not there at all. I only saw the first movie though.
avatar
Elmofongo: The White Goblin (who is Azog the Defiler and an Orc mind you) Exist in the Tolkein Legendarium, but in the Hobbit book he was already truly dead.
Okay. I knew he was a canon character.
The biggest issue I have with the Hobbit movies is that Jackson seems to be placing far more emphasis on adding new material than using existing material. There was so much that was either left out or re-worked in the second film, and it’s all the more painful to see when you consider how much time was placed on scenes like Thorin’s plan to smother Smaug in gold. That whole sub-plot took the better part of half an hour, it had absolutely nothing to do with any material from the books and ultimately it was completely pointless since Smaug just shook it off and flew out of the cave and we were right back to where we would have been if that scene never happened at all. We had a pissed off dragon who was getting ready to attack Laketown, which is just what happened in the book. But Jackson wasted a whole lot of time by taking a completely random and roundabout way of getting there. And that was time that could have been spent developing other scenes that were lacking or missing.

I have no problem with Jackson “filling in the blanks” by writing scenes that occur in parallel to the events described in the books, such as most of the scenes with the White Council. What really irks me is how the second film re-wrote almost every single scene that did occur in the books quite significantly. Even when scenes in the film did parallel those in the book, the context was often completely different.

I know that Jackson is very familiar with the books. There are enough references and details in the films to show that he knows the lore very well. So it’s not incompetence. It’s hubris. He thinks he can tell a better story than Tolkien. Yes, you have to make some changes for a book to work as a movie. But the majority of Jackson’s changes aren’t about reworking a novel into cinema. He’s flat out re-writing the story to try to make a better Hobbit than Tolkien.
Soon.
Just got home from the cinema, it's a very good end for the Hobbit Trilogy.
I'm not going into detail as probably almost no one saw it yet and I'm not a party-pooper. :)
My favorite scene is the one when dwarfs form a front line phalanx and elves jump them over to attack.
Hope there will be some extended versions soon!
avatar
Ryan333: The biggest issue I have with the Hobbit movies is that Jackson seems to be placing far more emphasis on adding new material than using existing material. There was so much that was either left out or re-worked in the second film, and it’s all the more painful to see when you consider how much time was placed on scenes like Thorin’s plan to smother Smaug in gold. That whole sub-plot took the better part of half an hour, it had absolutely nothing to do with any material from the books and ultimately it was completely pointless since Smaug just shook it off and flew out of the cave and we were right back to where we would have been if that scene never happened at all. We had a pissed off dragon who was getting ready to attack Laketown, which is just what happened in the book. But Jackson wasted a whole lot of time by taking a completely random and roundabout way of getting there. And that was time that could have been spent developing other scenes that were lacking or missing.

I have no problem with Jackson “filling in the blanks” by writing scenes that occur in parallel to the events described in the books, such as most of the scenes with the White Council. What really irks me is how the second film re-wrote almost every single scene that did occur in the books quite significantly. Even when scenes in the film did parallel those in the book, the context was often completely different.

I know that Jackson is very familiar with the books. There are enough references and details in the films to show that he knows the lore very well. So it’s not incompetence. It’s hubris. He thinks he can tell a better story than Tolkien. Yes, you have to make some changes for a book to work as a movie. But the majority of Jackson’s changes aren’t about reworking a novel into cinema. He’s flat out re-writing the story to try to make a better Hobbit than Tolkien.
It's not a direct retelling of the book, if it was we'd gave a 2 hr long film full of plot holes. I think he's created some good films out of the series and gave them more then enough to stand above the book worshipping nerds who only want a faithful re-creation. That's not my cup of tea.

Have you seen the cartoon renditions of the Hobbit and LOTR? Whether you have or haven't, watch them and remember it could of been A LOT worse.
avatar
darthspudius: Have you seen the cartoon renditions of the Hobbit and LOTR? Whether you have or haven't, watch them and remember it could of been A LOT worse.
Hi! Could you please tell me the director of the animated Hobbit movie?
Bakshi's LotR-masterpiece is easily one of my favourite movies of all time. I'd love to see the Hobbit as well if it's even a fraction as good.

I always recommend those who're new to LotR to first start with Bakshi and then read the books for an absolutely marvelous experience.
avatar
darthspudius: Have you seen the cartoon renditions of the Hobbit and LOTR? Whether you have or haven't, watch them and remember it could of been A LOT worse.
avatar
Xzaril: Hi! Could you please tell me the director of the animated Hobbit movie?
Bakshi's LotR-masterpiece is easily one of my favourite movies of all time. I'd love to see the Hobbit as well if it's even a fraction as good.

I always recommend those who're new to LotR to first start with Bakshi and then read the books for an absolutely marvelous experience.
oh buggered if I remember. But I remember those films are just horrible and did a pretty solid job of putting me off the books as a kid haha. LOTR was especially terrible, it was like a bad LSD trip.
avatar
darthspudius: oh buggered if I remember. But I remember those films are just horrible and did a pretty solid job of putting me off the books as a kid haha. LOTR was especially terrible, it was like a bad LSD trip.
Hmm, alright. I'll try to search around a bit. Thank you very much anyway!
avatar
darthspudius: oh buggered if I remember. But I remember those films are just horrible and did a pretty solid job of putting me off the books as a kid haha. LOTR was especially terrible, it was like a bad LSD trip.
avatar
Xzaril: Hmm, alright. I'll try to search around a bit. Thank you very much anyway!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077687/?ref_=nv_sr_4

I went searching!