@rosborne979,
Tom Bombadil does not appear in
The Hobbit.
@Setanta,
We've already established that.
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
And they're going along the same road, as far as Elrond's gaff at least.
Both Tolkien tales seem to revolve around getting from a forrest to a mountain. Just different mountains.
@izzythepush,
You are such a dickhead. As a matter of fact, i wrote out my post well before you posted, and hit "submit," then went to do something in another window, forgetting that i'd have to log in before what i had written was posted. When i came back to this window, i did the log-in song and dance. So, in fact, i had responded before you did. But you're so full of your pathetic little self, that you can't resist the snide, waspish remarks for which you are so well known around here. This sort of petty sniping really is the height of your daily routine, isn't it, you sad little man?
Silly little Saxon piece of ****. You constantly reveal your character here--or rather, you lack of it.
@Setanta,
If what you say is true, then it would be wise to check out the thread to make sure your comments were still relevant, so you don't end up looking like a dickhead.
You didn't do that, and your immediate resort to petty name calling confirms that you're an absolute cock womble.
Sure, asswipe, i'm sure you're right. You're always right, aren't you. I call you names because you're a foul piece of saxon ****, and no one here deserves it more.
can't wait for the dvd release, so i can see this in glorious non HD 2D on my 7 inch portable dvd player
hell i might go wild and hook it up to my 20 inch tube tv
I'm surprised they're making three movies from it. It's a slim little book, so i wonder what Jackson has got up to this time.
@Setanta,
from interviews i've heard, he delved into some of the tolkien mythology adding or elaborating on elements that relate to the story to flesh out the films
@djjd62,
You mean to flesh out the box office receipts.
@djjd62,
Thanks, Boss . . . i'll read it as i have time . . .
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:I saw the 3:30pm showing this afternoon. The only High Frame Rate showing I could find was also in 3D so I took that one.
All the 48 FPS Hobbit movies are 3D. Peter Jackson didn't see a need to step up the frame rate on the 2D movies.
3D action gets a greater benefit from the higher frame rate I guess.
rosborne979 wrote:As before with my other 3D experiences, I find the 3D effect more annoying than beneficial in any way, and an overall detriment to the film.
In addition, I also found the HFR aspect uncomplimentary to the overall experience. The HFR is very nice in action scenes or sweeping vistas or CGI, but it's very annoying in all the small intimate scenes. Many scenes of the movie felt like I was watching a soap opera on TV, it had that weird "cheap" look to it (even though I'm sure it wasn't cheap at all). Also, the added clarity just serves to expose the imperfections in the set and the makeup and background. The human eye is very discerning to subtle things and with such high clarity I found a lot of the scenes to look strangely artificial. There were several instances where it felt like I was watching a play on stage rather than a movie on a screen, and I didn't like that. Plays are one type of experience, but films, especially modern graphic laden, visual films are supposed to be an entirely different experience.
I'm looking forward to seeing the Hobbit again sometime (before it leaves theaters) in good old high quality digital and 2D.
The high-res IMAX showings have both 2D and 3D versions, so if you're at all inclined to like IMAX, maybe look out for a 2D showing in IMAX.
my favourite radio guy, ron bennington, is a great interviewer, the other day they had andy serkis, who plays gollum on the show, they spent over 2/3 of a twenty minute interview talking about the actors portrayal of musician ian drury and record producer martin hannett from the films sex and drugs and rock and roll and 24 hour party people, serkis loved the interview, especially the fact that they brought him into the studio playing drury's song sex and drugs and rock and roll
someone called in afterwards to ask why he didn't talk more about the hobbit, ron said, waht promotion does the film really need, while serkis does a great job as the CGI'd gollum, i wanted to talk about his real acting rolls and how great i though they were
if only more media was that honest, we'd probably see less crap on tv and the radio
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:I'm surprised they're making three movies from it. It's a slim little book, so i wonder what Jackson has got up to this time.
Not only three movies, but also three hours long. And I would not be surprised if there were "expanded editions" when the DVD/Blu Ray discs come out.
Mostly what he is doing is also showing the Wizards assaulting the fortress of The Necromancer/Sauron. That part isn't really covered in the book.
I went to check to be sure, and The Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit, which was both written and published first. I'd say Jackson is up to his usual tricks. Although i enjoyed The Lord of the Rings motion pictures, there was a lot of bullshit in there which Jackson and/or his team created, and much was left out.
@djjd62,
"Saruman the White (before he goes bad)"
That part of the article is inaccurate. Should be "before they knew he had gone bad".
At the time of the Hobbit, Saruman was already resolved to gain The One Ring for himself and conquer the world with it. He just didn't start acting overtly until LOTR.
I hadn't heard they resurrected Azog for the movie and are having him hunt down the Dwarves. He is more than "believed dead" during the Hobbit. Dáin Ironfoot chopped off his head just outside the Mines of Moria and then mounted his head on a pole.
Another problem, which could have been the CNN reporter's brain wave and not Jackson's, is that Thrain was a ring bearer, not the ring bearer, and he had a ring, not the Ring.
