Film The Hobbit

[opticle]

Not here.. not like this. *runs*



.. I don't understand all the people complaining about how it wasn't one movie. Jackson did an incredible job cutting LotRs down to only three. Even if he cut out all the extra/non-core stuff from this movie, it would have still been long and needed at least two. I think it's a good thing he's fleshed it out more with the Appendices, because things like Gandalf's disappearance in the book was a noticeable "Wut?" gap which would be even more obvious in the film. Not to mention the fact that if he didn't, we'd probably never see the material in a movie.

 

[Fweddy]

Spoiler

I disagree.

I don't think Saruman was "converted" by Sauron at this point. I think he was just naive and a denialist - thought they lived in peaceful times and refused to countenance alternative views - which explains his disliking of the "not normal" Radagast.

You see this sort of blinkered idiocy every day in normal life - from the average and normal Germans who, *eyes wide open* allowed Hitler to do what he did - to people on these boards who don't understand that any restriction on freedom of speech is a slippery facist slope that kills freedom of speech immediately. They would do this because they find some things offensive - and rather than man up and take it they would (innocently in their minds) destroy those who don't.

Tolkein knew very well what people who are "intolerant of difference" are like - so he wrote about it in his books. The fact that Saruman ends up as Sauron's bitch is *no coincidence* - it is, in Tolkein's opinion (and mine) the natural conclusion for people who are like that.

Spoiler

That does make sense, I just don't find it very satisfying. I find it hard to believe the council would let itself be led by someone so obviously close-minded. I thought he was supposed to be intelligent, persuasive and subtle. Corrupt or not he didn't come across as any of those to me.

 

[Scouse]

Spoiler

That does make sense, I just don't find it very satisfying. I find it hard to believe the council would let itself be led by someone so obviously close-minded. I thought he was supposed to be intelligent, persuasive and subtle. Corrupt or not he didn't come across as any of those to me.

Spoiler

I think that's simply because it's a film - not a book. There's only so much characterisation that can go on in a film (or a book for that matter) before plot and pacing begins to suffer.

If Peter Jackson released a film called "40 days and nights with Saruman" we'd probably see he was intelligent, persuasive and subtle in many ways - but at the same time blinkered and judgemental - i.e. just like lots of normal, complex, humans...

 

[Billargh]

Would be interested in hearing the opinions of people who don't love the book.

Sounds like from reviews and fan opinions that it's a shit standalone film but if you like the book (a lot) then you'll like it.

My impressions of it before it was released were meh and now having seen it I can tell you, I (imo) was correct. I really don't believe it needed to be almost 3 hours long and Martin Freeman done my head in, baring in mind I've barely seen anything (if anything at all) with him in, so I didn't go in as a hater. From a film making point of view it was beautiful, well shot and well acted for the most part.

Technically though it was superb, it took a little while to get my head around the 48fps and it had me feeling a little dizzy now and again, as well as the movement of things seeming unnatural and too fast. Now, being a sensible human being I can not stand this 3D bullshit we keep getting rammed down our throats, however they pulled it off really well in this film. This may be down to the high framerate but I don't think I experienced the usual 3D blur bullshit you get in most films.

I do think I'll go see it again like, preferably when I'm not nackered, just to see if I enjoy it any more.

Spoiler

Near the end seemed a bit silly though. Out of fucking nowhere: EAGLES! Do they have supersonic butterflies in Middle Earth?

 

[Scouse]

just to see if I enjoy it any more

I think this'll be judged after the 3rd film. I think the reason it could be "meh" for many people is the point I made earlier in the thread about it not being a real story yet.

It's like reading the first 3rd of a book - the beginning - and then saying the book is a bit crap. Well, yep - but the reason I liked it is because I think that, tonally, it was great and it makes me excited to watch the other two...

(In 3D IMAX 48FPS - no other format'll do until it comes to my telly )

 

[TdC]

Spoiler

That does make sense, I just don't find it very satisfying. I find it hard to believe the council would let itself be led by someone so obviously close-minded. I thought he was supposed to be intelligent, persuasive and subtle. Corrupt or not he didn't come across as any of those to me.

Spoiler

you forget, Saruman was the original White Wizard. Gandalf was "the Grey" and Ragadast "the Brown", to name the ones that are named in the book. There are more, actually. When Saruman finally does snap after years and years of being slowly corrupted, he names himself "the many-colored" arguing that even white light can be many colors under a prism. Gandalf then says "he who breaks a thing to find that of which it is made has lost the path of wisdom" and is imprisoned at the peak of Orthanc. It is only after Gandalf battles the bal-rog and expires after his victory that he returns as "the White". He returns to Orthanc after it has been sacked by the ents and expels Saruman from the council of wizards, and breaks his staff.

Note that Sauron doesn't do this manipulation to Saruman directly (or to Denethor for that matter), but through the palantir. You have to take in to account that Saruman and Denethor have been looking at their stone for a very long period of time, and Sauron is extremely subtle. It takes someone of truly awesome willpower to set the stone to his own will: even Aragon almost fails to do this, a mortal man albeit with Numenorian blood of the line of kings going mind-to-mind with a Maia being like Sauron. The only reason that Pippin survives his encounter with the Orthanc stone after pilfering it from Gandalf is because hobbits are surprisingly tough (Tolkien mentions this a good few times to drive home why hobbits in general can do such amazing things and come away more or less unscathed).

 

[Fweddy]

Spoiler

you forget, Saruman was the original White Wizard. Gandalf was "the Grey" and Ragadast "the Brown", to name the ones that are named in the book. There are more, actually. When Saruman finally does snap after years and years of being slowly corrupted, he names himself "the many-colored" arguing that even white light can be many colors under a prism. Gandalf then says "he who breaks a thing to find that of which it is made has lost the path of wisdom" and is imprisoned at the peak of Orthanc. It is only after Gandalf battles the bal-rog and expires after his victory that he returns as "the White". He returns to Orthanc after it has been sacked by the ents and expels Saruman from the council of wizards, and breaks his staff.

Note that Sauron doesn't do this manipulation to Saruman directly (or to Denethor for that matter), but through the palantir. You have to take in to account that Saruman and Denethor have been looking at their stone for a very long period of time, and Sauron is extremely subtle. It takes someone of truly awesome willpower to set the stone to his own will: even Aragon almost fails to do this, a mortal man albeit with Numenorian blood of the line of kings going mind-to-mind with a Maia being like Sauron. The only reason that Pippin survives his encounter with the Orthanc stone after pilfering it from Gandalf is because hobbits are surprisingly tough (Tolkien mentions this a good few times to drive home why hobbits in general can do such amazing things and come away more or less unscathed).

Spoiler

I'm sorry but I'm not certain what point you're making. Even when Saruman was defeated and everyone knew how treacherous he'd been he was supposed to have been so magically persuasive that Aragorn said "Once he was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvelously skilled; and he had a power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps. There are not many in Middle-earth that I should say were safe, if they were left alone to talk with him, even now when he has suffered a defeat. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, perhaps, now his wickedness has been laid bare, but very few others." With that power and everyone trusting him at that point he should have dominated that meeting and he clearly didn't. As Scouse quite rightly points out it's hard to show that sort of thing on film but I think they could have made a better job than they did.

 

[TdC]

Spoiler

I'm sorry but I'm not certain what point you're making. Even when Saruman was defeated and everyone knew how treacherous he'd been he was supposed to have been so magically persuasive that Aragorn said "Once he was as great as his fame made him. His knowledge was deep, his thought was subtle, and his hands marvelously skilled; and he had a power over the minds of others. The wise he could persuade, and the smaller folk he could daunt. That power he certainly still keeps. There are not many in Middle-earth that I should say were safe, if they were left alone to talk with him, even now when he has suffered a defeat. Gandalf, Elrond, Galadriel, perhaps, now his wickedness has been laid bare, but very few others." With that power and everyone trusting him at that point he should have dominated that meeting and he clearly didn't. As Scouse quite rightly points out it's hard to show that sort of thing on film but I think they could have made a better job than they did.

Spoiler

my point is that Saruman was the head of the order of wizards. he basically was a "good" maia, where Sauron for example is a "bad" one (although Tolkien says that the wizards are of a lower order of the Maiar) (and in fact Sauron was at the least neutral until being tempted away from the light side by Melkor/Morgoth). What Saruman managed to do for a very long time was disguise his intentions. He managed to circumvent the watchfulness of elves, men, ents, what have you and get on with trying to turn himself in to Sauron's mini-me. After he was defeated and cast out of the council by Gandalf, his treachery was revealed to all (meaning until then nobody really knew although there were signs and portents etc que Eomer's mutterings) and he was imprisoned in Orthanc...only to persuade an Ent, eg Treebeard, to let him go. Watch this: persuade an ent -a very old and powerful one- to break it's word and let him and Grima go! Wow, that's pretty damn impressive and not weak at all. Anyway, I realize that this may not be well represented in the film, and fwiw I have not yet seen it (going on Thursday) so I may have to get back to you with what I think after I have.

 

[Billargh]

I think this'll be judged after the 3rd film. I think the reason it could be "meh" for many people is the point I made earlier in the thread about it not being a real story yet.

It's like reading the first 3rd of a book - the beginning - and then saying the book is a bit crap. Well, yep - but the reason I liked it is because I think that, tonally, it was great and it makes me excited to watch the other two...

(In 3D IMAX 48FPS - no other format'll do until it comes to my telly )

Oh I'm definitely not writing the entire trilogy off just cause of my first impressions of the first third of the story I'm quite tempted to pick the book up anyway for a light read.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

When I originally read the books, I liked The Hobbit better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It was self-contained and a fun read, less heavy than the high English style of LotR. I remember reading that The Hobbit was a bedtime story Tolkien made up to tell his kids.

In amongst the zillion details, most of which I probably won't pick up on until I have the DVD, I liked Bilbo's outfit. It was pretty much spot on for how I imagined it, colours and all, completely inappropriate for adventuring and showing a well dressed and slightly snobbish Hobbit who has had it easy all his life.

I hope Jackson does a good job of the Battle of Five Armies by the time he gets around to the third film.

 

[Job]

When Saruman appeared, some people in the audience booed and Gandalf himself had that 'oh shit' look on his face, why was that, did they have bad blood before LOTR?

 

[Poag]

When Saruman appeared, some people in the audience booed and Gandalf himself had that 'oh shit' look on his face, why was that, did they have bad blood before LOTR?

Its that look when your boss walks in, while you are bad mouthing him, and you are doing something you probably shouldn't be.....


The audience just boos because LOTR.

 

[Scouse]

When Saruman appeared, some people in the audience booed

Did you go and see it in pantomime America or something?

Oh how the English have fallen

 

[DaGaffer]

When I originally read the books, I liked The Hobbit better than the Lord of the Rings trilogy. It was self-contained and a fun read, less heavy than the high English style of LotR. I remember reading that The Hobbit was a bedtime story Tolkien made up to tell his kids.

In amongst the zillion details, most of which I probably won't pick up on until I have the DVD, I liked Bilbo's outfit. It was pretty much spot on for how I imagined it, colours and all, completely inappropriate for adventuring and showing a well dressed and slightly snobbish Hobbit who has had it easy all his life.

I hope Jackson does a good job of the Battle of Five Armies by the time he gets around to the third film.

This. Always preferred The Hobbit to LOTR, which I found pretty heavy-going for a ten year old (I only read it because my 8 year old brother was showing me up, the precocious little bastard). Agree about his outfit as well, and I seem to remember drawing something like that in art class (I remember a bonfire in the picture as well). Scarily, that was 34 years ago...

 

[TdC]

Its that look when your boss walks in, while you are bad mouthing him, and you are doing something you probably shouldn't be.....

totally agree. nice analogy also, more or less Gandalf's job eh...meddling in things he shouldn't Saruman's the boss wizard, totally full of himself and convinced he's in the right 100% of the time. The other wizards he feels are almost lesser creatures compared to him. Also, remember that the two other visible wizards Radagast and Gandalf have very specific concerns and loves: the former's domain is animals and plants, the latter's is the peoples of ME. Saruman basically only loves himself and desires (more) power, which is possibly the key to his downfall. It's possible he's a bit of a gadget geek too: Gandalf says: "he has a mind of metal and wheels".

 

[opticle]

Did you go and see it in pantomime America or something?

Oh how the English have fallen

My cinema clapped at the end

 

[TdC]

My cinema clapped at the end

I never understand why that happens. Ok, maybe like a secret screening with the director and actors there, and you successfully blag a BJ off some starlet who's too thick to realize you're not in the industry then maybe...maybe.

 

[Roo Stercogburn]

Evil Dead 2 in a Glasgow cinema. Bruce Campbell turns round and you see the chainsaw on his arm for the first time. He says "Groovy".

The whole audience went mental cheering. One of the best and funniest moments I've ever experienced at a cinema.

Everyone was quite aware that Bruce wasn't actually there and that the screen was just a screen.

 

[Scouse]

Bruce Campbell is the exception to the rule

 

[Scouse]

View: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsA2dLl2-b8

Sorry

 

[Tom]

I've just seen it in HFR IMAX 3D. What an experience. It undoubtedly looks a little bit like television and your instinct is to think that it isn't "as good" as a normal film, but that's only because television has always been lower quality but with a higher overall frame rate. Once I began to think of what I was seeing not as a screen, but a giant moveable zoomable stage filled with real actors and real monsters, I became totally engrossed.

The part where they headed out into the plains was jaw dropping - literally. My mouth was agape, I couldn't believe what I was seeing, it was just awesome. Radagast's sled did move a bit fast but it's pulled by giant rabbits so I can hardly complain about realism. Gollum's face, when it came close to the camera, was fantastic, and when that moth flew away from Gandalf I could have sworn it was 2 inches from my nose, and beautiful.

It's also the first film I've seen where 3D looks perfectly natural. Oh and the Star Trek preview was cool too.

 

[Aoami]

Finally seeing it tomorrow. Can't wait.

 

[Tom]

Oh and several scenes made me very emotional, because I'm sentimental at heart - the bit with Gandalf explaining why he chose Bilbo, and the bit right at the end. I can't wait for the next two.

 

[Everz]

Don't know if anyone has mentioned it, but I took joy in a few idiots not figuring out this was a three-part film.

 

[Aoami]

I've just seen it in HFR IMAX 3D. What an experience. It undoubtedly looks a little bit like television and your instinct is to think that it isn't "as good" as a normal film, but that's only because television has always been lower quality but with a higher overall frame rate. Once I began to think of what I was seeing not as a screen, but a giant moveable zoomable stage filled with real actors and real monsters, I became totally engrossed.

agree

The part where they headed out into the plains was jaw dropping - literally. My mouth was agape, I couldn't believe what I was seeing, it was just awesome.

agree

Radagast's sled did move a bit fast but it's pulled by giant rabbits so I can hardly complain about realism.

i thought this bit was really bad

Gollum's face, when it came close to the camera, was fantastic, and when that moth flew away from Gandalf I could have sworn it was 2 inches from my nose, and beautiful.

agree

It's also the first film I've seen where 3D looks perfectly natural.

agree

 

[Scouse]

i thought this bit was really bad

Really? Did you watch it in IMAX HFR 3D?

I'm usually a stickler for physics in films - but I thought Radagast's rabbit's did a good job.

 

[Aoami]

Really? Did you watch it in IMAX HFR 3D?

I'm usually a stickler for physics in films - but I thought Radagast's rabbit's did a good job.

Yeah i did. The bit when the wargs were chasing him and he came towards the screen... eurgh. Too fast, too blurry, too fake.

 

[Zenith]

I was a bit disappointed. I loved the book, I loved the atmosphere. I thought to myself halfway the movie, after what, twenty minutes of nonstop fighting and running, the movie focused way to much on pretty looking fighting scenes. Way too much fightning, way too little atmosphere.

 

[Dutch_NS]

Seen the movie last night in HFR 3D, not that bad, was expecting worse. Stunning visuals tho.

Spoiler

The thing is, Gandalf is supposed to be very wise and smart, then explain me why they dont use the Eagles @ the start from the shire!! And fly all the way to that Dragon ? Really funny tho that the little bird woke up the dragon hehe

 

[DaGaffer]

Seen the movie last night in HFR 3D, not that bad, was expecting worse. Stunning visuals tho.

Spoiler

The thing is, Gandalf is supposed to be very wise and smart, then explain me why they dont use the Eagles @ the start from the shire!! And fly all the way to that Dragon ? Really funny tho that the little bird woke up the dragon hehe

This kind of thing was also one of the problems with LOTR. Tolkein was great at atmosphere and world-building; logic? not so much.