The Hobbit thread

by **Kenny** Fri 16 Mar 2012, 11:48 am

First topic message reminder :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSoD4BBCJc

I have to admit i am looking forward to this film more then any other this year , i have loved the story ever since i read the book when i was 9 years old ( a long long time ago )

by incontinentia Wed 10 Oct 2012, 3:51 pm

Tom Bombadil?

by SecretFly Wed 10 Oct 2012, 3:52 pm

Now you have him! - You don't think he's a fruitcake???

by incontinentia Wed 10 Oct 2012, 3:57 pm

Of course! How could I not cop it earlier, a fruit n' nut case for sure!

by President Trump Wed 10 Oct 2012, 4:08 pm

Tom Bombadil is one of the most interesting characters in Tolkiens world, he lived on Arda before the Elves came westward and can remember its creation, he also puts the ring on and it has no effect on him

by SecretFly Wed 10 Oct 2012, 4:32 pm

He's also the world's first psychedelic grass-smoking hippie who can turn his hand at some godawful tunes.....

But yes, he also can wear the ring without sobering up....

by **Crimey** Wed 10 Oct 2012, 6:26 pm

It's also ridiculous hard to understand and doesn't seem to add anything to the plot. Laugh

by compelling and rich Wed 10 Oct 2012, 7:20 pm

cant see tom bombadil featuring in the hobbit, if he wasnt in lotr where he featured cant see him being in this.

as crimey suggests he also very difficult character to put in, especially considering jacksons more darker less fantasy take on the lotr, heard alot of people complain about him not featuring in the films but i can totally understand, he totally undermines the power of the ring something which jackson had spent three movies building up

by SecretFly Wed 10 Oct 2012, 7:43 pm

I wouldn't be looking for Tom to be included but given there is going to be three movies and therefore inevitably an extension of The Hobbit as it was originaly written, there would definitely be time and a place for him as his age is kinda...well, he's a character that seems to have no definable age - ageless or very long lived.

But no - he'd be unsuitable as he's much more a literary device than a necessary narrative character. He's very allegorical - he could almost be even a dream, an emotion, the personaification of nature more than a real character.

But to be honest - I'm not so sure Jackson wouldn't drop him in there somewhere for mischief's sake.

by **Crimey** Wed 10 Oct 2012, 8:24 pm

I know that the first two films are of the Hobbit book, where as the third is something different. A bridging of the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings I think, so it's not inconcievable that Jackson could have the Tom Bombadil in that film.

I think the character wouldn't translate very well into film and would only be included to serve those that are loyal to the book.

by **Kenny** Mon 26 Nov 2012, 4:28 pm

17 days and counting

by **Derbyblue** Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:22 pm

Kenny wrote:17 days and counting

Can't wait, though I am quite worried about how it may turn out.

by SecretFly Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:32 pm

First Scene: Dark forest consumed in a heavy grey mist, swooping orchestral music builds as Galadriel walks lightly across the floor of autumn leaves. She stops and gives us that bewitching gaze then looks to her left.

From behind a large oak tree comes a figure with long ears.
"Ah yes, sir - it's a meesa. Thats Gollum insa hole, is a Terrrrrrrible bad mansa, methink. Notsa going back there-sa, no sir. Meesa Jar Jar Binks! "

Oh no, Peter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Not you too!!!!!!

by Gregers Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:42 pm

Tickets booked for the 13th at Brighton Odeon Very Happy

by Guest Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:51 pm

Kenny wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTSoD4BBCJc

I have to admit i am looking forward to this film more then any other this year , i have loved the story ever since i read the book when i was 9 years old ( a long long time ago )

Me too, I read the book when I was five.

by Guest Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:55 pm

Dicey Reilly wrote:
Spoiler:

Bombadil is the most boring part of TLOTR; always used to skip that chapter.

by SecretFly Mon 26 Nov 2012, 5:57 pm

The Ents weren't exactly my favourite in the books either....and certainly not in the movies.

by Guest Mon 26 Nov 2012, 6:04 pm

Totally agree, all those bits about the ents deliberating and humming and bumming - soooo boring.

But seriously, I used to hate Bombadil when I was a kid. Still do mad

by SecretFly Mon 26 Nov 2012, 6:11 pm

Bombadil always struck me as a tripping morris dancer. "Ah fiddledee dod, boomderry" jibberish. Just barking mad.

by **Derbyblue** Mon 26 Nov 2012, 7:26 pm

Does anyone know who the character is who says "A dark power has found its way back into the world." In the trailer? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b1SJ7yaa7cI

Also bits like the end of that trailer make me worried they've added things to give it a comedic element, which isn't there in the books. Love this book so much I can't help but think they'll have ruined it, part of me also thinks even if it's good I'll find ways to knock it.

by SecretFly Mon 26 Nov 2012, 7:34 pm

Radagast I think. Sylvester McCoy

by **Kenny** Mon 26 Nov 2012, 7:36 pm

Its Radagast according to the website and i only know that as its Sylvester McCoy playing it

by **Fists of Fury** Tue 27 Nov 2012, 9:05 am

Cannot wait for this film, what a magnificent book. It'll be sad when there are no more Tolkien films to be released.

by Skydriver Tue 27 Nov 2012, 9:31 am

Maybe Disney will buy Wingnut & Weta and continue making sequels.

by **Fists of Fury** Tue 27 Nov 2012, 9:35 am

by **Derbyblue** Sat 08 Dec 2012, 4:40 pm

SecretFly wrote:Radagast I think. Sylvester McCoy

Kenny wrote:Its Radagast according to the website and i only know that as its Sylvester McCoy playing it

Thanks guys, explains why I couldn't work out who it was as I've only read The Hobbit, and not the other Middle Earth books. Guess it's a sign of what they've changed from the book to make it into what is probably going to be 9 hours of film.

by Smirnoffpriest Sat 08 Dec 2012, 8:40 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:Cannot wait for this film, what a magnificent book. It'll be sad when there are no more Tolkien films to be released.

U never know, theres always the similarian,,,

by **Kenny** Sun 09 Dec 2012, 1:04 pm

Smirnoffpriest wrote:
Fists of Fury wrote:Cannot wait for this film, what a magnificent book. It'll be sad when there are no more Tolkien films to be released.

U never know, theres always the similarian,,,

erm

by **Derbyblue** Sun 09 Dec 2012, 1:58 pm

Kenny wrote:
Smirnoffpriest wrote:
Fists of Fury wrote:Cannot wait for this film, what a magnificent book. It'll be sad when there are no more Tolkien films to be released.

U never know, theres always the similarian,,,

erm

I'm sure we all know what he means, it was sort of close enough. Haven't read it but would their be enough in The Silmarillion for it to actually make a good film(s)?

Never knew you were from the Mines of Moria Kenny, didn't realise that they were in Hull.

by **Kenny** Sun 09 Dec 2012, 2:02 pm

Derbyblue wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Smirnoffpriest wrote:
Fists of Fury wrote:Cannot wait for this film, what a magnificent book. It'll be sad when there are no more Tolkien films to be released.

U never know, theres always the similarian,,,

erm
I'm sure we all know what he means, it was sort of close enough. Haven't read it but would their be enough in The Silmarillion for it to actually make a good film(s)?

Never knew you were from the Mines of Moria Kenny, didn't realise that they were in Hull.

Silmarillion is my least favourite of the Tolkien books , but yes i take your point . The Mines of Moria was the name of my band ( i say band we were terrible , but we thought we were good ) in the early eighties

by **Fists of Fury** Mon 17 Dec 2012, 4:08 pm

Ha, awesome band name.

SO then, gents, what do we think of the film? Thoroughly enjoyed it myself.

by Skydriver Mon 17 Dec 2012, 4:21 pm

There are some comments on the "last watched film" thread from myself and others.

Basically liked it, but not as much as any of the Rings films. My view is possibly informed by the fast frame rate slightly disagreeing with me though. Would be happy to see it again in a different format though.

by **Kenny** Wed 19 Dec 2012, 2:48 pm

I thought it was very good , i didn't go into it thinking it would be as good as LOTR which probably helped as i dont think it was ........but it was very enjoyable to be back in Middle Earth all the same

by **Derbyblue** Thu 20 Dec 2012, 1:16 pm

Wasn't as good as any LOTR film, but then I didn't really expect it to be, and also feel like if I had never read the book I would probably enjoy the film more as though I can kind of understand the reasons they added the bits they did personally I didn't appreciate them. Probably give the film a 6 or 7 out of 10 which is disappointing as I give the book a 10. My opinion on the noticeable changes:

Spoiler:

by Skydriver Thu 20 Dec 2012, 1:56 pm

I was also wondering why neither Glamdring nor Orcrist glowed in the presence of goblins/orcs.

It might be for the practical reason that they simply missed doing so for Gandalf's blade in LOTR (or at least, that's what I remember hearing from the director's commentary track on Fellowship) hence needed to maintain continuity.

by TopHat24/7 Thu 20 Dec 2012, 4:09 pm

Fists of Fury wrote:Ha, awesome band name.

SO then, gents, what do we think of the film? Thoroughly enjoyed it myself.

Thoroughly enjoyable is definitely the right description. Not a great film though, just 'good'. Very obviously just the first third of a longer film. Agree with the review I read that it feels a bit like a 3 hr prologue.

by Guest Fri 21 Dec 2012, 11:31 am

I'll be seeing The Hobbit on 27 December. Cannot wait, despite knowing deep down that nothing will ever surpass the feeling I got when watching Fellowship for the first time. That was one of the most intense experiences of my life.

by spencerclarke Mon 24 Dec 2012, 8:34 pm

I'm a bit on the fence. Lot's of it were very good. 'Riddles in the dark' as good as anything I expected. But the rabbits, 'chips' and wobbly chin thing seriously did my head in.

If they are going to meddle much more I hope it's to add more Gollum in the other two films.

The fight scenes were very good and Martin Freeman grew on me as Bilbo. Loved the trolls too.

Plus on a side note the plates bit in the book was stupid too!

by Guest Fri 28 Dec 2012, 10:40 am

I saw it yesterday - easily the best LOTR fiolm to date!

Negatives for me:

1. The casting of Martin Freeman - he was great actually, but in Fellowship Gandalf gets suspicious of Bilbo's looks, saying 'Bilbo Baggins...you haven't aged a day'. Clearly he's aged about 40 years though!

2. Stone Giants. Sigh.

3. How eloquent Mr Wobbly Chin was.

4. Mr Chips, who is the Jar Jar Binks of this trilogy it appears.

5. Radagast.

by Ent Sun 30 Dec 2012, 12:47 am

Saw it today, I'd say it was better than all the LOTR films- probably helped by the fact I'd not read it in 15 years.

For people complaining, the book is nearly 80 years old - and even cinema has moved on in the 10 years since LOTR - some minor changes were bound to happen to make it more friendly to the silver screen.

I do worry about the 3rd installment though if it is all new material - likely to be a disaster really.

by spencerclarke Sun 30 Dec 2012, 12:49 am

Yeah but the rabbits and the chips?

by Ent Sun 30 Dec 2012, 12:56 am

Don't really see the problem with the rabbits? We are watching a film with wizards, orcs, elves, dwarves etc why is 10 rabbits pulling a sleigh (with a wizard on it) so ridiculous.

The chips thing is just a bit of comic relief, it's a 2 second quip - are people really hating on it?

by spencerclarke Sun 30 Dec 2012, 1:05 am

Dickens and Shakespeare are older but there is no need to excessively mess with those either. As I say happy on the whole but could have been better. Money grabbing to pull it out to three films. And the chips character is the hobbits jar jar binks as mentioned above. Why mess with a good formula? there were plenty of relevant comedy moments but a few needless. The rabbits were a joke as it was unneeded as was radaghast.

by Ent Sun 30 Dec 2012, 1:13 am

spencerclarke wrote:Dickens and Shakespeare are older but there is no need to excessively mess with those either. As I say happy on the whole but could have been better. Money grabbing to pull it out to three films. And the chips character is the hobbits jar jar binks as mentioned above. Why mess with a good formula? there were plenty of relevant comedy moments but a few needless. The rabbits were a joke as it was unneeded as was radaghast.

You definitely would need to change Shakespeare to make a blockbuster from it, same with Dickens - already been altered for the big screen (not just talking about the muppets version either).

The young dwarf isn't anywhere near as annoying as jar jar binks, I think he suits the group quite well.

Radaghast is a plot device, he moves things along at a good pace.

by alfie Sun 30 Dec 2012, 1:52 pm

Just saw it. Enjoyed it very much.

OK maybe it should be titled " Part one of a tale of Middle Earth Based on Tolkein's The Hobbit " ...and heaven knows how they're going to spin it out to two more films , but who cares ? Terrific visually , witty , and just great fun.

Well done Jackson clap

by **Derbyblue** Sun 30 Dec 2012, 5:50 pm

spencerclarke wrote:Dickens and Shakespeare are older but there is no need to excessively mess with those either. As I say happy on the whole but could have been better. Money grabbing to pull it out to three films. And the chips character is the hobbits jar jar binks as mentioned above. Why mess with a good formula? there were plenty of relevant comedy moments but a few needless. The rabbits were a joke as it was unneeded as was radaghast.

I feel Radagast was needed but mainly because I have a feeling that most of the second film will be focused upon what Gandalf gets up to while the dwarves are going through Mirkwood, which I think is meant to be he's off trying to stop the necromancer, which I assume will feature Radagast. Beefing out the second film to follow Gandalf will mean that we would likely not progress that far in the actual story with the dwarves probably only arriving in Laketown or maybe setting off on their journey to the Lonely Mountain before the end of the film.

Who is this chips character everyone hates?

by Ent Sun 30 Dec 2012, 7:12 pm

The guy who makes the joke about the elves not havin any chips, the young elf.

by Smirnoffpriest Wed 02 Jan 2013, 2:08 am

I really enjoyed the film - though a lot could have been coz I was very happy to be pulled back in the LOTR world again. I liked the dwarves and Radagast (and the rabbits - I felt they encapsulated what I remember of him in the books, nutty, very eccentric, but in one with nature and very effective in his own way).

Not as good as the other LOTR films, but mostly coz the Hobbit (part 1) didn't seem to cover anywhere near as much story as any of the LOTR's.

I felt there was needless changes to the 'trolls' bit but enjoyed the dwarves back story and the fighting scenes. - Still don't see why they need the third film...

by The Boss Wed 09 Jan 2013, 6:33 pm

I am a massive LOTR's fan but I didn't like The Hobbit at all. Was very let down by it. Didn't see the need for 3 movies to begin with and don't know if I'll watch the next 2 now.

Thought it was needlessly childish and cartoon like in too many parts with some poor jokes thrown in for good measure.

by Guest Wed 09 Jan 2013, 7:28 pm

The Boss wrote:I am a massive LOTR's fan but I didn't like The Hobbit at all. Was very let down by it. Didn't see the need for 3 movies to begin with and don't know if I'll watch the next 2 now.

Thought it was needlessly childish and cartoon like in too many parts with some poor jokes thrown in for good measure.

See, I'm a massive LOTR fan, and I hated Two Towers and dislike Return of the King. Yet loved The Hobbit.

I agree that three films is milking it, but the quality of this film was far above that of Two Towers for me. I really, really hate that film. Treebeard furious

by The Boss Wed 09 Jan 2013, 7:33 pm

The 2 towers is my least favourite of the trilogy but I struggled to see anything I liked about The Hobbit. I could feel myself cringing while watching it in the cinema. Gandalf as per usual I liked and the scene with Gollum was good along with the fight seens. The thing with the massive chin? What was that all about?

Haven't read the book in years but I can't remember that!

by Sponsored content