tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
12-24-2014, 12:31 PM

12-24-2014, 02:36 PM
missing part is probably for extended version releasing next year :) hobbit 2 extended much better also.

tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
12-25-2014, 12:34 AM

12-31-2014, 06:59 PM
I saw this yesterday. It was very well-done, and a fitting prequel to Lord of the Rings.

My favorite scene was no doubt when Galadriel and Saruman were fighting the Nazgul, and then Galadriel banishes Sauron back to Mount Doom (at least, I think that's what happened).

I also really loved when Smaug spoke directly to Bard. Even though it only lasted less than a few minutes, that bit when Smaug was completely destroying Lake Town was very memorable.

The music was top-notch, as usual. I'm really glad that Shore was able to score all six films - it makes for a very fluid listening experience when you watch the movies all together. The surround mix was very well-done, too, especially during the scene where Thorin realized he had dragon-sickness and he was being swallowed by all of the gold.

CGI was really good; I do think the Orcs looked less disgusting and more smooth-skinned, but maybe Jackson likes them to look that way.

It was very obvious that a stunt double was used for Saruman 90% of the time, though. Not that I'm blaming Chris Lee - that guy is old - but I think it could have been choreographed better so that Saruman's back wasn't to the audience during every fight scene.

I liked how Alfrid got away in the end; even if he was an awful jerk, it's nice to show that not everyone gets their comeuppance, even if they deserve it (but then again, neither did Saruman in the theatrical version in The Return in the King. Maybe Alfrid will meet his end in the extended edition).

One complaint I see a lot about this trilogy is that there's too much Lord of the Rings stuff that Jackson added in/made up. That's a silly argument.

Jackson was in a unique position in which his vision for the LotR was fully realized, whereas Tolkien had no idea he'd be making such sequels when he was writing The Hobbit. Fans of the LotR film trilogy (but not necessarily the books) would no doubt have more interest in The Hobbit as a prequel, rather than a standalone story devoid of any references or foreshadowing. If you wanted to see just stuff that was in the book, then read the book again and stop griping about how the movie wasn't just like it. I can't understand why some people feel that adaptations must match the source material 110%.

I don't own any of The Hobbit movies yet. I'm holding out for a Blu-ray extended edition box set, like they did with LotR. It'll be fun to see all six extended films in order.

tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
01-11-2015, 09:23 AM

01-14-2015, 01:19 AM
I can't understand why some people feel that adaptations must match the source material 110%..

What's so hard to understand? People have different tastes. Some people love these movies as adaptations. Others love them just as movies. Still others hate them as adaptations, as movies or as both. Many of us who were disappointed truly believe a more faithful adaptation would have made for better films.

And let's not kid ourselves, this trilogy doesn't match the source material to even 15%, let alone 110%. Even I will admit that an adaptation that matched 110% would have been ridiculous! :)

---------- Post added at 05:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

If you wanted to see just stuff that was in the book, then read the book again and stop griping about how the movie wasn't just like it.

I'll add though that I'll gripe about whatever I damn well please, thank you.

01-14-2015, 02:36 AM
Well I still have some time to kill while uploading, so why the heck not.

I found The Hobbit trilogy in all to be good movies. At first I was saving them for the 4K experience, not watching the first and second one until about a month ago when I realized the upgrade to 4K was not going to be worth the wait. I saw the first to extended editions on 2D Blu-ray, and the last in the theaters (HFR and 3D). I regret having seen the last in theaters, with the sound just never even close to being up to par with how I am used to watching movies myself.

I for one am glad they did not just stick to the book but added more elements from other sources. It would not have made that great a movie if they would make a strictly faithful adaptation. It was interesting to see the added side story with Gandalf and co. If these Hobbit movies had been released before The Lord of the Rings Trilogy I am sure that they would have been more popular and less criticized. The goal was to "Share in an adventure", which is exactly what they did, and in my opinion succeeded.

One gripe I do have with all six of the movies is their lack of origin explanation on key recurring characters. People who haven't read the books still after six lengthy movies have no clue of the origins of Gandalf, Saruman, the ancient powerful elves (Galadriel), the Valar and all others sorts of Maiar and creatures. Would it really have been that hard to include some expository dialogue on these matters? They found the time to constantly grind the traits of Hobbits, Dwarves, and Men. If the movies cared to elaborate on the origins of lets say the Maiar, and how the great Wizards are restricted in power while say Sauron is not, it would have also added more credibility and tension to the looming threat. I consider this to be a genuine drawback of the movies. I can only imagine what the general audiences must thing after seeing the scene with the showdown of Galadriel and Sauron, or Gandalf and The Balrog, while there are so many factors at play that are either completely neglected or woefully inadequately touched upon. And this is coming from someone who has never even read either The Silmarillion or The Hobbit, just knowledge extracted from hearsay. I think it is a missed opportunity to make the movies more fleshed out and interesting. Is the story of Galadriel's ancestors really that boring (explaining why she is the fairest of all Elves left on Middle Earth during the course of these stories)? Or does this have anything to do with the rights of The Silmarillion still being in the hands of the Tolkiens?

Well, that's what I had to say about it.


tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
01-15-2015, 11:22 AM

01-16-2015, 07:07 AM
I think some of the appeal to keep them vague was to draw "mystery" to them.
There were a couple times Gandalf could have explored more into his past. When he was talking about "There were five" wizards.
If this wasn't a PJ film, we could have a neat cutaway scene like in Harry Potter about the Deathyl Hallows.
Or start the movie like Ocarina of Time with neat story introduction and then cut to the main titles.

I am no director, so I would not counsel anything on how this should have been handled. But, I think they failed in mentioning specifics. Lets take Gandalf for instance. What would would the average moviegoer make of the character? There is nothing to suggest he is anything other than an 80-year-old with a staff, not to even mention there is no evidence towards there not being hundreds if not thousands of wizards and he just happens to be one of them. Then The Hobbit films come along, and he's still there with the same physical appearance. Doesn't that at least warrant an explanation? I am not talking about expanding on the entire lore of Tolkien's work, but at least append some basic exposition, heck use words like "Arch-Angels" and "Lesser-Angels" in lieu of Valar and Maiar if you have to pander to the general audiences.

But, the Tolkien world is pretty damn huge.
The audience is already having a hard enough time trying to learn the principle characters names (9 in the LOTR trilogy, 15 in the Hobbit).
And then all the other characters.
And their father's names (Son of Train! Son of Thror!). Their place of origin (all the towns, passes, bridges, cities, castles, towers, marshes, hills, mountains, rivers, etc). Their nicknames (not only their nicknames in Westron, but also their names in other languages from other races).

When it came to the secondary members of the Fellowship and the dwarves, there in my opinion did not have to be any further explanation on them. But key recurring characters should have at least a few lines of information on their origins. They try to convey the importance of Galadriel for example by mere visuals, would it not have been augmented by the knowledge of her forefathers. Too much information is bad, but too little also leaves much to be desired and makes the world seem stale, or even arbitrary. Just why is Sauron the big bad? Why is he feared? The three elven rings of power--they were not subjected to his malice, which as far as I know the audience has no clue of. Does the audience even know who have these rings? I don't even think the movies bothered to touch on that.

It's pretty damn huge for the audience to take in.
I don't have much friends or family that are into this fantasy/adventure genre.
To them LOTR was just too long to sit through. They didn't care about all the mystical races and politics.
It took my mom TH:AUJ to get into the genre. She fell in love with the Dwarves and Thorin Oakenshield's story.
After that, we went back to the Fellowship. Took her several watches to catch who's bad, who's good, who's neutral, etc.

Isn't that exactly the problem? They have a minimal of three hours per movie for explanation, yet they still fail to some degree in that aspect. Three times 180 minutes is more than sufficient to explain the nature of the conflict. The Fellowship of the Ring opens with a seven minute introduction which they could have made longer. And the movies spend lots of time on elements which could arguably be shortened. Though I agree the books of Tolkien are just so overwhelming in terms of detail it is kind of difficult to cherry-pick that which would be best for a movie adaptation. Would explaining things not make it less less confusing if you stick to brevity and distinct imagery? I hate to belabor a point, but right now the audience probably doesn't even know the difference between Sauron and Saruman--their names just sound too alike. And who can blame them? The story stops at "they're the baddies".

The origin of the Istari wasn't that important to me. The movie still moved a long without that aspect.
But, perhaps, it would have really helped understand why Gandalf doesn't use his magic so often as people like to make fun of.
And, why the eagles aren't called very often.

I guess maybe I am just a sucker for these things, but I have always appreciated background information on characters as it elevates the scenes displayed. Its the exact same thing with Star Wars. It somehow just feels more epic if you know whats really at stake. It just feels more satisfying to know just what that Balrog was and adds much more tension to the scene, while simultaneously helping convey what a feat it was for Gandalf to smite it down. When I first watched the movies I did not have the pleasure of knowing these facts.

I'd really like to see another RTS game for The Hobbit. And just plain ol' more Tolkienry.
EA should get the licences back to make more games.
Or whoever has them now, should make a new series of RTS games.

I take it your desire hearkens back to the Battle for Middle Earth games? I played the second installment for so many hours. I installed the S.E.E. mod and tweaked that one to my desire and what I think Tolkien intended (Glorfindel immensely powerful, Sauron being nigh unstoppable with his ring raising the stakes for searching The One Ring; the Eagles and Ents being seriously powerful and not just equal to trolls; the ancient elven warriors being the finest troops to have, Bombadil... etc.) Man did I adore tweaking that mod constantly and setting up scenarios the nerd that I am. Perhaps the most fun was to choose the Helm's Deep map against three AI enemies at their most difficult level and strictly utilizing heroes to win with the bottleneck point of the bridge being excellent for defense while retaliating at the enemy with other heroes. Of course I altered the most difficult AI to practically have infinite money to churn out troops indefinitely and rebuild their base for zilch.

Same with Star Wars: Empire at War. If you dig Star Wars I seriously urge you to check out that RTS game with the "Phoenix Rising" mod which is practically 100% true to canon.


tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
01-16-2015, 07:18 AM

01-16-2015, 07:29 AM
I believe this is the intro to the S.E.E. mod: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKg7bR6X_L8

Phoenix Rising is a must for EaW, there is just no other option for me. The inconsistencies in the original game are just far too jarring. The fighters are far too big, the stats are way off. I am sure you will take a liking to this mod. The description of the units alone is a mind-boggling achievement. Its all accurate down to the maneuverability and acceleration of each unit in relation to one another. If you want to know exactly how one army would stack up against another--this is it. I can't find a link right now but they used to have the manual up as a separate download which was well in the hundreds of pages. Just take a quick peek at Galactic Conquest on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6o5svF8h4g

Mind you you need a seriously powerful processor (since it's a game that just works on one core you need to have it clocked as high as you can).


tehƧP@ƦKly�ANK� -Ⅲ�
01-16-2015, 07:53 PM