Forums → Popular Media → The Hobbit
| 80 | 40720 |
- 80 Replies
so you would expect some change in the dwarven fashion and look
thats not what i mean.
it looks horrible FAKE.
bad animated or bad costumes. and can't see the difference but what i c is that it looks like **** and fake
(not pointing at fashions. but pointing at skin structure, color and floppyness. and things like that. its just awfully done)
I for one, am extremely excited to spend the next three or four years watching and enjoying the Hobbit trilogy!
It was an absolute treat waiting and watching the LotR series (and even on a much lighter note; the Harry Potter series).
Having to watch is actually the best part! That's what Christmas and Birthdays are made of, impatiently waiting!
The fact that Peter Jackson and Crew decided to come back and make another trilogy, even after stating that they would never do it again, is absolutely amazing. The quality, the heart and soul, that the crew and actors put in pays off ten fold. The Hobbit will have no problem bringing in people to the theaters. I promise this movie will run for weeks well after a movie release is usually pulled to make way for another film.
I'm stoked. Totally stoked. I read the books years and years ago, and just about forget most of it. So when I see it in the theater it will almost seem like something new!
I'm not at all excited for the 3D, I wear glasses yes, but I was never a fan of 3D. Never. Typically it means that all thought was put into special effects and absolutely no contend. I know that The Hobbit is not like that, but regardless I will not be seeing it in 3D.
Post script; I spend an entire day watching featurettes and all types of behind the scenes footage. Cannot wait!
What always puzzled me, is why did Gandalf pick a hobbit, a Baggins even (Baggins were calm and settled, although Bilbo did have some Took in him), so why did Gandalf pick Bilbo to be the party's burglar?
~~~Darth Caedus
What always puzzled me, is why did Gandalf pick a hobbit, a Baggins even (Baggins were calm and settled, although Bilbo did have some Took in him), so why did Gandalf pick Bilbo to be the party's burglar?
if he went to destroy the ring by himself, it would make a very short and boring story.
@partydevil, when you can do all the makeup and new skin on a dwarf then i will take your comment into consideration
if he went to destroy the ring by himself, it would make a very short and boring story.Bilbo found the ring by accident. (he got conked on the head during the scramble to escape the goblins). Gandalf had no previous knowledge about the ring being in gollum's possession, and only found out about it 50 years later. (I think Gandalf's main purpose was to simply help a friend and to drive Sauron out of southern mirkwood.)
~~~Darth Caedus
when you can do all the makeup and new skin on a dwarf then i will take your comment into consideration
they did a good job on the LotR dwarf. that looked natural.
so i know that they know people that can do it. (same guys who did it for LotR)
but these new dwarfs do not look natural. and thats what bothers me.
Bilbo found the ring by accident. (he got conked on the head during the scramble to escape the goblins). Gandalf had no previous knowledge about the ring being in gollum's possession, and only found out about it 50 years later.
yea...
does that change anything for the commend of mine?
when gandalf found the ring he could have taken it himself. use a little magic to teleport to middle earth. drop the ring. and story is over.
very short and boring tho.
use a little magic to teleport to middle earth. drop the ring. and story is over.
Isn't it basically a big part of the story of Lord of the Rings, that he can't just take it himself, because it would take him three seconds to become corrupt with power and start waking up dragons and ef up Sauron, so he himself could become the big potato of Middle Earth?
Not to mention, for demigod-like beings, the wizards don't seem very good at teleporting.
It might very well have been a very short story, but it would not have been boring and it would not have end well.
Hobbits get corrupted exceptionally slowly, all things considered, and while some points could have gone better, it would have taken a lot away from the main focus of the books, which is the sub-creation of the world and not the plot at all.
Anyway, yup, looking forward to seeing these movies, mainly for the dragon, but also because I want to see how well they translate a children's book into an epic.
I'm sorry but im just disapointed in this.I remember watching The Hobbit as a kid (yes there is an old one) and quite frankly i think its rediculas that they the remake off of a diffrent story
I'm with you, Samiel. I had a look and did some digging. According to several sources this Hobbit project is going to be another Trilogy. *GASP* I'm really upset with all the additional characters they either added or made up just to make it 'interesting' or 'appealing' to certain watchers. I've seen the old version of the Hobbit and I liked that one a lot.
I'm going to wait and see but I don't think I'm going to be real impressed with The Hobbit.
What always puzzled me, is why did Gandalf pick a hobbit, a Baggins even (Baggins were calm and settled, although Bilbo did have some Took in him), so why did Gandalf pick Bilbo to be the party's burglar?
If you know the story, you'll know Bilbo is not the first Hobbit Gandalf took with him on adventures. In the LotR, he once again trusts a Hobbit to take the ring to Rivendell, and later doesn't object when Frodo accepts to take the ring further. He even says sometime in the movie that Hobbits are sturdier than one would except and will always surprise you. I think Tolkien must have had a certain fondness for the Hobbits^^
He even says sometime in the movie that Hobbits are sturdier than one would except and will always surprise you.
They are a lot harder to corrupt, because, well, they don't want power or money (they give gifts on their birthdays, for example), and most are more than content with their lives in the Shire, where nothing really happens and they almost never meet elves or humans, if at all. Bilbo wasn't very interested in adventuring either, but he was kinda the odd one in the family as well, as was probably a lot less annoyed with being dragged into it all as any other would have been. Frodo got adopted by Bilbo, and got to live with an adventuring uncle, who did go to meet elves and got more of a taste of the world outside of the Shire, so obviously he would be good for such a huge adventure, though he is not entirely okay with all the danger.
As for Merry, Pippin and Sam, it's two cousins from a hobbit town near the river, and river hobbits tend to be more adventurous and fun loving than the ones in Hobbiton. If I remember correctly, Frodo also lived with them for a while, or one of his parents were from that town, so that explains that as well. And Sam is just loyal. He would rather have stayed at home, but he was also young and curious and a good friend of Frodo, so, yeah.
The Hobbits of Tolkien's lore are more or less a picture of the common man, one that is forced into trouble, who has a calm and reasonable mind and big heart.
/Overanalysing and possibly not remembering the stories correctly, it has been a long while since I read them.
If you know the story, you'll know Bilbo is not the first Hobbit Gandalf took with him on adventures. In the LotR, he once again trusts a Hobbit to take the ring to Rivendell, and later doesn't object when Frodo accepts to take the ring further. He even says sometime in the movie that Hobbits are sturdier than one would except and will always surprise you. I think Tolkien must have had a certain fondness for the Hobbits^^Pray tell, what other hobbits are you talking about, unless you are saying that The Hobbit happens after the main trilogy, which is just ridiculous.
Bilbo wasn't very interested in adventuring either, but he was kinda the odd one in the family as well,Bilbo had some Took in him, and they were known for being more adventurous, as shown when Bilbo keeps thinking about his "Tookish" side during the dinner at his house.
And Sam is just loyal. He would rather have stayed at home, but he was also young and curious and a good friend of Frodo, so, yeah.Sam was sent along as "unishment" for listening in on the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo, several years after Bilbo left and right before Frodo left. (as an alternative to being turned into a frog or something)
~~~Darth Caedus
Bilbo had some Took in him, and they were known for being more adventurous, as shown when Bilbo keeps thinking about his "Tookish" side during the dinner at his house.
Oh, right, that part of the family are called Tooks. See the "River Hobbit" stuff.
Sam was sent along as "unishment" for listening in on the conversation between Gandalf and Frodo, several years after Bilbo left and right before Frodo left. (as an alternative to being turned into a frog or something)
Hence the young and curious. The only reason he was listening in on them.
I don't know, we obviously both read the book, I don't see a reason to explaining it in detail to each other.
As for the top quote, HahiHa might very well mean "Bilbo was not the only Hobbit" rather than "not the first".
Yesterday I watched all of the Lord of the Rings extended editions in one day with very small breaks so now I can watch the Hobbit in peace knowing that I've been prepared.
After watching all of those movies I really hope that they don't make the characters as much of idiots as the Lord of the Rings characters were in the movies.
I do not yet know if there'll be a midnight premier at my local theater but if there is then I'll hopefully be there. can't wait!
You must be logged in to post a reply!