Big fan of the book, and I thought a movie would be awesome! After seeing a couple previews i'm not sure how I feel. What do you predict .net? Awesome or let down?

I can't believe there milking it for 3 movies though

@BernardShakey said:

@hillyp said:

I can't believe there milking it for 3 movies though

Either they're paying a lot of attention to detail or it's a big money grab.

I'm going with money grab. Let's be honest, not that much happens in The Hobbit compared to the LOTR trilogy, which was three movies as well.

It's definitely about the money but I'm sure they will pay attention to detail

I've never seen a movie that did the book justice, idk.

Movies are different, use different "tools" than books. I'm most concerned with "on the road" and the complete f***ing morons that are gonna watch it and become instantaneous experts on the beat. I will watch both and probabky enjoy each as seperating entities from their origin.

I LOVE the book. Shit I even dig the cartoon...I will see the movies but I'm kind of on the fence about em though.

I just hope it doesn't get too cheesed out. But stoker to see more gandalf the grey. Might even have to take down my wooden gandalf pipe and give her a whirl, it's been some time.

^i need some guarantee of baggins jumping the dragon or I won't bother seeing the 1st.

@Phlat_Brim_Kid said:

I think they are going to fill it with a bunch of cg action that really didnt happen in the book. LOTR had a lot of "fight/war" scenes. and they were able to make that the centerfold of those movies. The hobbit is more of traveling and dialogue? i think they are gonna go off the wall with dragon scenes and fighting scenes that didnt happen or will be exagerated to the point were fonzi jumps the shark.
Not trying to kill it b4 i see it but 3 movies is way too much. Literally just went to the bookshelf.
HOBBIT=304 pgs paper back

Fellowship=348pb
Towers=398pb
Return=340pb
__________+
1086 pages!

so 1086pgs makes 3 movies then 304 makes 3? unless they are going to supplement it with simmirilain enclyopedia shit its gonna be a stretch.

I mean if you think about it, and have actually read the books, they left ALOT out of the original trilogy in the film versions. I think if they wanted to they could have made the LotR movies into 4 or even 5 movies and still leave shit out while still having a hit on their hands. Therefore, with the addition of Silmarillion material it is pretty conceivable (at least in my mind) that they can stretch it into three movies. I will admit that I have not read the Silmarillion, but maybe these movies will convince me to do so.

@nematode said:

@Phlat_Brim_Kid said:

I think they are going to fill it with a bunch of cg action that really didnt happen in the book. LOTR had a lot of "fight/war" scenes. and they were able to make that the centerfold of those movies. The hobbit is more of traveling and dialogue? i think they are gonna go off the wall with dragon scenes and fighting scenes that didnt happen or will be exagerated to the point were fonzi jumps the shark. Not trying to kill it b4 i see it but 3 movies is way too much. Literally just went to the bookshelf. HOBBIT=304 pgs paper back Fellowship=348pb Towers=398pb Return=340pb __________+ 1086 pages! so 1086pgs makes 3 movies then 304 makes 3? unless they are going to supplement it with simmirilain enclyopedia shit its gonna be a stretch.

I mean if you think about it, and have actually read the books, they left ALOT out of the original trilogy in the film versions. I think if they wanted to they could have made the LotR movies into 4 or even 5 movies and still leave shit out while still having a hit on their hands. Therefore, with the addition of Silmarillion material it is pretty conceivable (at least in my mind) that they can stretch it into three movies. I will admit that I have not read the Silmarillion, but maybe these movies will convince me to do so.

Im not up to date on the subject. Are they including simarilion materail or did u think i siad they were? i was just speculating.
If u really, i mean really love the hobbit/LOTR read it. if you are a casual fan. dont waste the money its 378pb of the encylopedia style history of middle earth. its a really tuff read.

@nematode said:

@Phlat_Brim_Kid said:

I think they are going to fill it with a bunch of cg action that really didnt happen in the book. LOTR had a lot of "fight/war" scenes. and they were able to make that the centerfold of those movies. The hobbit is more of traveling and dialogue? i think they are gonna go off the wall with dragon scenes and fighting scenes that didnt happen or will be exagerated to the point were fonzi jumps the shark. Not trying to kill it b4 i see it but 3 movies is way too much. Literally just went to the bookshelf. HOBBIT=304 pgs paper back Fellowship=348pb Towers=398pb Return=340pb __________+ 1086 pages! so 1086pgs makes 3 movies then 304 makes 3? unless they are going to supplement it with simmirilain enclyopedia shit its gonna be a stretch.

I mean if you think about it, and have actually read the books, they left ALOT out of the original trilogy in the film versions. I think if they wanted to they could have made the LotR movies into 4 or even 5 movies and still leave shit out while still having a hit on their hands. Therefore, with the addition of Silmarillion material it is pretty conceivable (at least in my mind) that they can stretch it into three movies. I will admit that I have not read the Silmarillion, but maybe these movies will convince me to do so.

ONe thing they left out the movies was when they returned to the shire and sharkey/sarumon was running shop and the hobbits kicked ass all alone! that was a bad ass part of the book!

@nematode said:

Don't forget Tom Bombadil, one of the better chapters in the entire trilogy. And I'm pretty sure they are incorporating a bunch of the mythology and backstory stuff from the Silmarillion, don't know where I heard it but I believe it to be true. Edit: after speaking with my Dad, who originally got me into the series, he said he once attempted to read the Silmarillion and fell asleep frequently. Needless to say he never finished it. Wikipedia has some solid articles on the subject that summarizes the history of Middle-Earth pretty well for those who are interested though.

Totes Tom is cool! they even brought him up agian in the ring meeting! or how the those trees are kinda like disgruntled ents?

This was the first real book my dad read to me when I was a little kid. I can't wait to see it. The others were great, I don't see why this one wouldn't be

@Phlat_Brim_Kid - A(nother) Watership Down movie would be interesting if it were done right. But I don't think I would go see it. I have such a vivid imagination of the characters and places and events in that book and Tales that I wouldn't want to spoil it by seeing a movie.

I'm in for Hobbitt, regardless of how many parts it is.

I would also be in for Watership Down, even though there are certainly some "heavy" parts for a children's story.

Movie better than the book = The Client. Only one I can think of where I felt this way.

The Hobbit : children's fairy tale :: The Lord Of The Rings : history textbook

the 1977 Rankin-Bass animated film did an outstanding job of delivering the vibe and more innocent charm of The Hobbit, folk songs and made-for-TV commercial breaks and all. i've always enjoyed it, as have most of my LOTR-loving friends. i can't imagine this new movie (three? really? justify that for me please) will manage to do a better job.

Funny articale about the hobbit
53minute scene of bilbo packing

Just got back from it. The wifey and I kept our expectations low and ended up having a great time. It's been a long time since I've read the book, but I felt like a few things were added/changed to provide continuity with the LOTR films. It's certainly stands apart from the the Rankin and Bass animated version of yore. Jackson puts his wonderful stamp on all of the monsters and the dialog wasn't half bad either.

@PhLoRiDa_PhAn said:

JUST WALKED IN FROM THE MOVIES. WOW!!!!!!!! what an amazingg first half of the 2 part movie. GO SEE IT IF YOU LIKE JRR TOLKIEN BOOKS or LOTR trilogy if you dont knw they were books lololol.

9.5-10 for sure

Hope you're being serious.

phlorida phan is a fluffer

Im not fluffing shit. Go see it. I just paid for my parents myswlf and my little brother ans it was worth every f***ing hard earned penny. Go see it and doubt me if im wrong.

Just got back, really enjoyed it, lots of added stuff, was expecting Radgast to be a bit less mumbling bumbling bafoon. Riddles in the Dark scene was great. Landscapes and scenery is breathtaking in the 48fps. I really enjoyed the format, don't get the "looks like a soap opera" complaint. I get what people have said about it lookin more like being on a film set than watching a film, not sure that is a bad thing, almost like it's happening around you, some times it works others not so much, the brighter the scene the more iffy it looks.

Also heard people complaint about the CGI looks extra fake in this format but for the most part it was spectacular. There was that one scene where Rhadgast was being chased by the wargs that looked SUPER fake, otherwise top notch.

You definitely pick up on the way they alter the story to ramp up the action. To be honest I really wish Jackson wouldn't do that so much. Epic battle scenes are NOT the reason I enjoy Tolkien. Not going to get too specific here (I know you read the book but you haven't seen the movie and it's different) but LotR had the same thing going on, like when Aragon fights that cave troll towards the end of RotK, or Faramir deciding to take the ring to Gondor. Essentially he either adds something in entirely or he unnecessarily alters a scene to steer it toward more action.

All in all thought I was pretty damn awesome.

Am I the only one who is going to be happy when these movies end? That means Peter Jackson i one step closer to the two sequels he promised to this great film

Just got back. Great movie. Love how they're intertwining it with LOTR. Hate that I have to wait a year for the next one, though.

so the movie is good or the 3d effects are good? its sounds like some of u are rating the piture quality. a movie should be good on a black and white tv.

We're going to see it in IMAX 3D tonight so I'll get back to you. God willing they won't make us sit through all the stupid songs. Yeesh...

I'm curious about the 48 Hz frame rate it was shot at.