Official 'The Hobbit' Thread - Part 8

[redhawk23]

Hobbit IMAX film reels waiting to be reassembled.

 

[Kane52630]

Hobbit IMAX film reels waiting to be reassembled.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't want to see that movie.

I'd much rather have the version we got too, but if it had to be two films that's probably the easiest way to do it. You can't cut much from ROTK or FOTR, minus the parts that were already cut (Bombadil, Scouring of the Shire) for the films that we got.

I wouldn't say that she's "beauty personified", but she certainly has more character appeal than Arwen. But what are they (the filmmakers) gonna do, that's who he picked in the books.

It is worse in the book. Arwen only has like two lines. Her brothers do more than she does.

 

[Marvolo]

Eowyn always seemed like the repressed girl who is sweet on her older brothers buddy. Its cute but nothing more. Aragorn seemed to treat her more like a sister of sorts. Yeah he cared about her but he didnt want to "be" with her.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well I wish she was sweet on me. I love both Otto and Liv, but in LOTR I thought Liv was terrible as Arwen from the moment after she saved Frodo. It was good till then and then something happened and I couldn't stand her for the rest of the films. That Miranda Otto showed up and stole my heart made it worse. She isn't what some would consider a typical beauty, but there is something about her that I just adore. Also thought she was great in the films.

I still want to see the deleted glittering caves scene. It was in like the first trailer for TTT and still nothing.

 

[Marvolo]

Well I wish she was sweet on me. I love both Otto and Liv, but in LOTR I thought Liv was terrible as Arwen from the moment after she saved Frodo. It was good till then and then something happened and I couldn't stand her for the rest of the films. That Miranda Otto showed up and stole my heart made it worse. She isn't what some would consider a typical beauty, but there is something about her that I just adore. Also thought she was great in the films.

I still want to see the deleted glittering caves scene. It was in like the first trailer for TTT and still nothing.

Miranda ottodid a very good job. I would also like to see that glittering cave sequence, but I am glad it was cut. Would have rather they cut that whole plot of Eowyn looking after the women and children and all those reaction shots, but I understand why Jackson included it. Raises the stakes of the battle.

Another scene I would like to see is the one of the wargs attacking rohan at night and dragging aragorn off. They couldnt get the lighting right and the winds were so bad they couldnt control the fires so they scrapped it and replaced it with the warg attack on the way to helm's deep. It was also the scene that gave Theoden motivation to leave Rohan for helm's deep and explained why Theoden took the women and children with him. Not much of it was shot, but Id like to see what little was shot.

 

[Pink Ranger]

The film version of Arwen very much suffers when we analyze her using our modern values, whereas Eowyn, who from the moment we meet her struggles with what we are more likely to view as true adversity and exhibits genuine non-romantic love for others, is far more sympathetic.

 

[Marvolo]

The film version of Arwen very much suffers when we analyze her using our modern values, whereas Eowyn, who from the moment we meet her struggles with what we are more likely to view as true adversity and exhibits genuine non-romantic love for others, is far more sympathetic.

True. Arwen fits the values of her race, the time she lives in, and the mold women inhabit in that society. Arwen is an elf maiden. A slightly ethereal being that aragorn has loved since the moment he laid eyes on her. Eowyn fits into the society she lives in but longs to break free from the social standards and ideas of how a lady of the court should act. Its easy to view Eowyn as the stronger and more likeable female character but in context there isnt anything wrong with Arwen.

 

[Brain Damage]

Is the IMAX version 48fps or 24?

 

[vinsanity]

the misty mountains song scene in the movie

[YT]NRUBe2RTq74[/YT]

 

[redhawk23]

is the imax version 48fps or 24?

24, while the digital liemaxes might have been able to pull off the frame rate, the film projectors can't be set at 48.

 

[Marvolo]

I really liked that. Moments like that make these films for me.

 

[HowardStark]

I am glad to know it wasn't cut from the movie like some teaser trailer stuff do sometimes. I wonder if its why Armitage got to be Thorin. I mean was the ability to sing kinda important casting.

 

[C. Lee]

I really liked that. Moments like that make these films for me.

Me too. I'm sure some people will complain because it's not action packed and a concise exposition of part of the plot...but to me that's the beauty of these movies.

 

[Kane52630]

Yeah, it looks like from some of the complaints that it is slow in the beginning and wasn't as interesting but I feel like I will really enjoy those scenes.

 

[bullets]

I really enjoyed the shire scenes in the LOTR trilogy. I'm sure it will be the same case with The Hobbit.

 

[HowardStark]

If i recall years ago a film called Star Wars A New Hope started out slow and profiled most of the first parts of the movie around 2 Droids. Lucas was told by his friends it would never work. And took the Gamble and the 2 Droids worked and Star Wars is one of the best films made. My point is yes its probably a gamble for Peter to start out Slow but I am sure it was the best chance to get to know the Dwarvs before the action and adventure beings in a peaceful setting.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think the slow pace of the movie has to do with them trying to adapt a 300 page book into 3 near 3 hour movies.

They have only limited source material to work with so they really have no choice but to be very deliberate.

 

[Victarion]

It adds scope to the film. We start in a quaint, cosy little place and are suddenly thrust into a more frightening world--Trollshaws, Goblin Town, the orcs/warg hunters all culminating in the Battle of Five Armies. Looking forward to this, especially the additions Jackson has made.

 

[Fives]

I can't wait to see this. It looks like it'll be real good. I've liked the trailers I've seen for it, and I really like the LOTR movies. Deinitely looking forward to this.

 

[HowardStark]

I think the slow pace of the movie has to do with them trying to adapt a 300 page book into 3 near 3 hour movies.

They have only limited source material to work with so they really have no choice but to be very deliberate.

Its not just the Book is this movie based off of. I am sure its also a bridge movie between Hobbit and Fellowship and I am also sure that there is some Tolkien notes that tell more then since the Book was written in the 30s.

 

[Quasimod0]

It adds scope to the film. We start in a quaint, cosy little place and are suddenly thrust into a more frightening world--Trollshaws, Goblin Town, the orcs/warg hunters all culminating in the Battle of Five Armies. Looking forward to this, especially the additions Jackson has made.

Oh yes. I'm very excited to see the slow start that picks up speed as it goes. Everybody knows that on a good adventure, there are some uneventful stretches of time. But they are neccessary to continue on. I love the slow moments that are used to build the world and characters

 

[Marvolo]

I think the slow pace of the movie has to do with them trying to adapt a 300 page book into 3 near 3 hour movies.

They have only limited source material to work with so they really have no choice but to be very deliberate.

The beginning of this movie was shot back when it was two films so I highly doubt the beginning was effected by the decision to make three films. And can I just say that I am getting tired of the reason for everything being that it is three films. Many decisions were made and a lot of details were decided upon when it was two films long before it was three. Not everything is a result of them adding to what they had and making three.

Food for thought, can yall imagine how long this film and the second one would have been without the third film. Jackson said when they assembled this film they realized they had way too much for two films but not enough for three so they would need to leave a lot on the cutting room floor or to shoot a bit more to allow them to release a third. Now think about it, if Jackson says they have way too much for a film it must have been A LOT. This man isnt shy of three hour films. Part 1 even with a third film is near 3 hours. It must have been pushing 4 hours before they added the third film for Jackson to say it was too much. And had they chopped off that hour and put it in Part 2 it would have been monsterous. Obviously better planning from the beginning would have negated this, but Id like to know just how long the original Part 1 was before they added a third film. Must have been a monster. In any case Im glad they were allowed to make a third. Without it and not being able to fit what they had into two parts a lot would have ended up cut.

 

[redhawk23]

It must have been approaching God's and Generals length.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The beginning of this movie was shot back when it was two films so I highly doubt the beginning was effected by the decision to make three films. And can I just say that I am getting tired of the reason for everything being that it is three films. Many decisions were made and a lot of details were decided upon when it was two films long before it was three. Not everything is a result of them adding to what they had and making three.

Food for thought, can yall imagine how long this film and the second one would have been without the third film. Jackson said when they assembled this film they realized they had way too much for two films but not enough for three so they would need to leave a lot on the cutting room floor or to shoot a bit more to allow them to release a third. Now think about it, if Jackson says they have way too much for a film it must have been A LOT. This man isnt shy of three hour films. Part 1 even with a third film is near 3 hours. It must have been pushing 4 hours before they added the third film for Jackson to say it was too much. And had they chopped off that hour and put it in Part 2 it would have been monsterous. Obviously better planning from the beginning would have negated this, but Id like to know just how long the original Part 1 was before they added a third film. Must have been a monster. In any case Im glad they were allowed to make a third. Without it and not being able to fit what they had into two parts a lot would have ended up cut.

Well that's just poor planning on jackson's part then. I fail to see how the man who was able to condense the 3 epic LOTR novels into 3 concise and fulfilling films couldn't manage the scope of the 1 hobbit even with appendices added.

It really feels like extravagance for the sake of it on his part, not dissimilar to lucas with the prequels. To me the only way a film warrants being near 3 hours in length is if all parts of it hold up. From beginning to end. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with short and sweet, which is probably how most would describe the Hobbit book.