The point is not to clutter the football thread side of the house. It's not about confusing people. I don't see the point in adding NFT in a comment when literally 5 people have viewd the thread and no one has posted.
I was just trying to help. usually properly labeled threads get more responses. I didn't think I was being a dick about it. anyways, I hope you enjoy the movie.
One of the companies I do business with does an annual event where if you listen to their pitch for an hour you(and your family) get to see a movie 1-2 days before it's released. So, we saw it Monday night.
Me and the kids (teenagers) loved the movie. My wife who has seen all of the other LOTR and Hobbit movies didn't like it. She said there was too much of the movie that was just a big battle. I reminded her what the name of the movie was when she made that comment, but whatever.
My only complaint - even though it's not in the book, I thought they could have done a better job of transitioning to the LOTR series at the end of the movie, but that's just me.
to see an 11:00am matinee show with my brother, nephew, and a few friends of 40 years or so. I watched the extended version of the second movie last night in preparation. Kind of sad to see the franchise finally end, but I'm looking forward to the visual spectacle. This will be fun! :)
to see an 11:00am matinee show with my brother, nephew, and a few friends of 40 years or so. I watched the extended version of the second movie last night in preparation. Kind of sad to see the franchise finally end, but I'm looking forward to the visual spectacle. This will be fun! :)
I'm sure Peter jackson can manufacture another story. And I'm also sure it'll get a reboot before you know it.
But the Hobbit? First of all i do not know what the Hobbit is so i had to look it up, "please no spoilers"? Is this real? I doubt your kid reads BBI and will read spoilers. are you taking your kid to the movie or is this for you? I am really confused because wiki said its a childrens book and fantasy novel. So in all seriousness, is this for you?
But the Hobbit? First of all i do not know what the Hobbit is so i had to look it up, "please no spoilers"? Is this real? I doubt your kid reads BBI and will read spoilers. are you taking your kid to the movie or is this for you? I am really confused because wiki said its a childrens book and fantasy novel. So in all seriousness, is this for you?
How fucking stupid are you that you did not know what the Hobbit is?
It looks like adults do see the movie. I apologize for that, what is the movie about? what is the appeal? Ive never even heard of it till today. Did not mean to offend anyone here with thinking it was a kids movie
If i dont know what the Hobbit movie/book is. I guess instead of getting my masters degree I should have watched the Hobbit? No i apologize for being dumb and not knowing what the movie was.
Tolkien was a distinguished professor of Philology at Oxford. The books grew organically out of his rigorous work. First, he created the languages and cultures of what became Middle Earth. (Linguists remain awed by his version of Elvish.) Then he created a world around the languages. Then he added stories to the world.
George R.R. Martin summed up the difference between Tolkien and his imitators - including Martin himself:
Quote:
With Tolkien, what you see in the books is the tip of an iceberg that goes all the way down to the ocean floor. The rest of us build a platform near the surface, stick the tip of an iceberg on top of it and hope that nobody looks too deep.
...my father had two of those, plus a PhD. The Hobbit is the first book I remember us reading aloud together. I've now read my dad's copy of the first U.S. edition to each of my daughters - three kids with very different literary tastes - and they all loved it. If you don't like fantasy literature, so be it. I'm not a big fan either. But dismissing The Hobbit on that basis is like skipping Mona Lisa during a visit to the Louvre because early 16th century portraiture bores you.
Whether the book had the makings of three movies is another question. I think two would have been more like it, if not for the commercial imperatives demanding the extra ticket sales.
Loved the LOTR movies. Have all three extended editions. Once you watch those, you can't go back to the theatrical versions. Great movies.
The Hobbit is lacking in a lot of ways. When Peter Jackson originally planned to make the Lord of the Rings series, he envisioned it as two movies. Whether this is because he was introduced to the series via the 1978 animated film (all crammed into one film), or feeling no one would agree to finance all three movies, I don't know. Jackson was originally going to make the two movies with Miramax, but when the company looked at the potential budget, they balked and tried to reduce it to one movie. When Jackson later pitched the two movies to New Line Cinema, Bob Shaye pushed for three separate movies (he wanted his trilogy). So three movies for three books? Makes sense.
Now we have The Hobbit. One book. Three movies? Why? Tolkien can write the book in barely 300 pages, but they need nearly eight hours for the movie? Parts of this "trilogy" have been incredibly stretched out. Parts of the Desolation of Smaug were painful to sit through.
In the LOTR trilogy, I was able to develop a personal interest in. Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli. Eventually also Merry and Pippin. There are precious few characters in this Hobbit trilogy that I have a personal interest in. Bilbo and Gandalf. Legolas was a total dick in Desolation of Smaug. I don't find Thorin to be all that likeable. Balin's alright, but I already know he's going to die in Moria. The rest of the dwarves, I couldn't care less. Bard has potential. Tauriel is likeable, but I don't know how invested I am in her character.
Finally, it's no secret that Peter Jackson never intended to be the director. I get the feel from these movies that Jackson is much more attached to LOTR than The Hobbit.
So anyway, I'll see it when it hits DVD, thank you very much.
BBB. We all have read, and love, JRR Tolkien. Pull in your horns.
It's not text book written by the professor of your class where almost all the info is barely needed for the class. Unless of course it math and science related. Then of course fantasy isn't needed because you don't need some escapism from the absolute nail biting heart racing that subjects like advanced math and Chemisty provide
Heck Calc has imaginary numbers. Doesnt it? Been almost 30 years since I read the Hobbit and took Calc. Guess which one I remember more?
RE: I'm gonna go ahead and add The Hobbit to the list of things
I'm calm now. Haven't seen the movie, and probably won't until it's on Netflix. I thought the first two were OK, nothing special. Three movies from that wonderful little book is definitely overkill.
It's a hell of an action packed flick right from the first moment it starts. It won't win awards, but it was a solid flick, and a decent end to the franchise. Only thing left to look forward to is the release of the extended version of it next November. Haha...
I do highly recommend watching the second movie again before seeing it. It begins exactly where the second movie ended. They don't give a synopsis of what's happened to that point. And there are many references to scenes in that second movie throughout the film. I re-watched it last night, and it made for a much more enjoyable experience having everything fresh in my mind seeing it today.
LMAO...In two different threads today Cruzship has
tried to imply he has 2 masters, and a number of Rolex's and Breitling watches. I can see why he is too important to have wasted reading fantasy....pfft!!
That guy has to be TimCarter4:28 or whatever the hell his name was.
The point is not to clutter the football thread side of the house. It's not about confusing people. I don't see the point in adding NFT in a comment when literally 5 people have viewd the thread and no one has posted.
Bilbo isn't even an appetizer for Smaug. Colbert interviewed Smaug on his show, and apparently has a small cameo in the movie.
Me and the kids (teenagers) loved the movie. My wife who has seen all of the other LOTR and Hobbit movies didn't like it. She said there was too much of the movie that was just a big battle. I reminded her what the name of the movie was when she made that comment, but whatever.
My only complaint - even though it's not in the book, I thought they could have done a better job of transitioning to the LOTR series at the end of the movie, but that's just me.
I'm sure Peter jackson can manufacture another story. And I'm also sure it'll get a reboot before you know it.
How fucking stupid are you that you did not know what the Hobbit is?
George R.R. Martin summed up the difference between Tolkien and his imitators - including Martin himself:
I would think someone with a Master's would know that.
But thanks for posting on a thread you know nothing about. Makes total sense.
Whether the book had the makings of three movies is another question. I think two would have been more like it, if not for the commercial imperatives demanding the extra ticket sales.
The Hobbit is lacking in a lot of ways. When Peter Jackson originally planned to make the Lord of the Rings series, he envisioned it as two movies. Whether this is because he was introduced to the series via the 1978 animated film (all crammed into one film), or feeling no one would agree to finance all three movies, I don't know. Jackson was originally going to make the two movies with Miramax, but when the company looked at the potential budget, they balked and tried to reduce it to one movie. When Jackson later pitched the two movies to New Line Cinema, Bob Shaye pushed for three separate movies (he wanted his trilogy). So three movies for three books? Makes sense.
Now we have The Hobbit. One book. Three movies? Why? Tolkien can write the book in barely 300 pages, but they need nearly eight hours for the movie? Parts of this "trilogy" have been incredibly stretched out. Parts of the Desolation of Smaug were painful to sit through.
In the LOTR trilogy, I was able to develop a personal interest in. Frodo, Gandalf, Sam, Aragorn, Legolas, Gimli. Eventually also Merry and Pippin. There are precious few characters in this Hobbit trilogy that I have a personal interest in. Bilbo and Gandalf. Legolas was a total dick in Desolation of Smaug. I don't find Thorin to be all that likeable. Balin's alright, but I already know he's going to die in Moria. The rest of the dwarves, I couldn't care less. Bard has potential. Tauriel is likeable, but I don't know how invested I am in her character.
Finally, it's no secret that Peter Jackson never intended to be the director. I get the feel from these movies that Jackson is much more attached to LOTR than The Hobbit.
So anyway, I'll see it when it hits DVD, thank you very much.
I intend to see the movie, but I'm not crazy about lengthy computer generated battle scenes. I'll take Robert Mitchum in a foxhole over that any day.
For LOTR, Fellowship was 92%, Two Towers was 96%, and Return was 95%.
Heck Calc has imaginary numbers. Doesnt it? Been almost 30 years since I read the Hobbit and took Calc. Guess which one I remember more?
LOL
Believe it or not, there ARE enough hours in a lifetime where someone can do both. Shocking, I know...
Still not sure why the special effects look horrible compared to 10 years ago, must be that HDR Filming.
I do highly recommend watching the second movie again before seeing it. It begins exactly where the second movie ended. They don't give a synopsis of what's happened to that point. And there are many references to scenes in that second movie throughout the film. I re-watched it last night, and it made for a much more enjoyable experience having everything fresh in my mind seeing it today.
Dual Energy!