So reviews for the film are starting to come out, and all are positive.

http://www.theonering.net/torwp/2013/12 ... rgo-lifts/

Personally, I loved AUJ, especially the 40 minutes spent at Bag End. I just have to get through 2 more finals, then I get to see Smaug in all his glory! 6 days left!

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I have little hope myself. AUJ was garbage, with a few highlights, and I only saw it once. It was visually spectacular, of course: the sets, costumes, and all that were amazing, and I expect those high standards will be met again. But I also expect all that will be reduced by cheese and corn. I hope I am wrong.

I'm rewatching it right now, and I must sat it's most definitely not garbage. It's very different from LotR in tone, but I love, almost as much as FotR.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I really hate these sort of films.. the good guys tumble, swing and fall into the next adventure right after the other.. Killing huge orcs is like hitting small flies and none of the main caracters even bump their heads or something like that..

yeah right falling down hundred of meters (escape from goblin town) and get a huge goblin king on you head and NOT break a leg

_________________
"His people were of great strength and stature, bold and steadfast, mighty among the Children of Ilúvatar."

That's really what happened in the book. Did we ever really think the trolls or spiders would eat them? That's just being accurate to the book.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

PJ likes to go OTT on spectacle at times but I can forgive that. Mostly.
And it would have been a completely different story if the Company had perished in the Misty Mountains, or Mirkwood, or at any point before they reach their destination.
Bear in mind - this was pitched at a younger audience (Tolkien created The Hobbit as a bedtime story for his children) and it is, well, fantasy. Dragons... glowing swords. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy it.

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

I don't understand why everybody hates AUJ.

Indeed, if you were expecting LOTR part 4 you would be terribly disappointed. But do realize it, is even without the PG rating, is a kids movie. If you were expecting deep and long dialogue, and long traveling, it was terrible. But if you were expecting battles, journeys and adventures it was great.

Yes it was full of toilet humor. Yes it was sometimes not deep enough. But think back to your childhood: Did you always keep to the age recommendation? And what do you remember about those epic movies you saw as a child? They were funny (The Trolls, The great Goblin, Gollum) and had some likable characters you would like to be (Thorin, Dwalin, Gandalf) they had lots of fighting (Goblin Town, Azanulbizar) a great cast with a lot of chemistry (Thorin & Co) a scary villain (Azog even scared me, and probably Gollum) and even had some parts you were too young for to understand (The White Council)

So in my opinion, Peter Jackson had done a great feature with The Hobbit, making it an awesome epic that many adults and Lord of The Rings fans love, and still keeping some honor to the source material making it a lovely kids movie.

I loved The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey because of the journey and all the aspects I mentioned above, and I am looking forward to The Desolation of Smaug for what it will bring.

I wouldn't call the first "garbage" exactly, but it wasn't great either.

There was way too much movie for too little story (LOTR was too little movie for too much story). When the actors were let act, the thing shone. James Nesbitt and Freeman's little exchange before the Goblin Town sequence, for example, was lovely. While LOTR used a lot of old fashioned sets and as much landscape as possible, Hobbit 1 used stupid amounts of green screen. Fellowship, for example, used clever forced perspective and so forth to let Gandalf and the Hobbits share the screen together. Hobbit apparently had Ian McKellan emoting on his own against a green screen. The result looked a bit ropey sometimes, but generally came across as grounded and organic. The CGI/Mo-cap orcs may have saved a lot of people time on the makeup chair, but gave us these oddly unconvincing and generally unthreatening Orcs.

The CGI really allowed some laziness to kick in. The mountain giants bit was particularly egregious. In the book, Bilbo records a fanciful image or metaphor (like Stone Giants playing football). They don't interact with the giants. There may not even be giants. The film, however, gave us this weird, not desperately interesting thing to amuse people with 3d glasses on. The film climaxes with an emotionally complex and desperate situation undermined by...that whole thing with the trees and the cliff.

I know its supposed to be a children's story. I know its supposed to be Bilbo making things up. But the story is also a variant on the more "historical" appendices, with events here forming important context for LOTR.

The whole result is an interesting experiment...and one that emerges quite disappointingly.

_________________
Dreaming of getting back to painting...any month now.

Do you know what the wonderful thing is?

Is that AUJ was neither garbage or not garbage Just like with model releases, ultimately, it's subjective; you either liked or you didn't like it or was somewhere in the middle

The way I approach both LOTR and The Hobbit "THE MOVIE" is this; It would be very difficult to make a film of either that would keep both purists and the general public pleased. I'm a Tolkien fan and there's tons of things in both LOTR AND AUJ that an eyebrow would instinctively raise to.

But I think it's important to know that these are simply an entertaining interpretation of Tolkien's universe and stories and I just feel lucky I get to see middle earth and those characters on screen.

Take them for what they are and understand why they might be a certain way or do certain things and I find it's more enjoyable. It doesn't replace the books or the world Tolkien created. It just adds another medium to enjoy it all in a different way.

AUJ was bound to be lighter… evil, whilst in the ascendency, hasn't got it's foot on the gas yet and let's face it, the Hobbit was a kids book. In a fantastical universe. I expect DoS to be much darker for the most part. I'm not a Harry Potter fan AT ALL, but kind of how that was done… the movies and books get progressively darker as the main antagonist grows in power and influence and the audience grows up with the character, from a child's world to the world of a young adult.

So let's be positive I'm looking forward to the opportunity to make my own opinion in a week!

_________________
Subscribe to the GBHL YouTube for daily SBG content http://Www.youtube.com/gbhlpodcast
*5th in 2014 GBHL

The first two harry potter books where terrible, only after the 3rd on did my 10 year old brain enjoy them.

Don't you say anything against AUJ it is so awesome. >:(

Here is a small article from the BBC on Stephen Fry's combover:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-25268251
There are a few neat little snippets from the movie as well :0

_________________
Published ebooks:
Instrument of the Empire
A Note of Defiance
Phantom Ships, Ghost Flotilla
More to come!

In no way was auj garbage!
I think PJ has managed to strike a good balance between maintaining the style of his previous trilogy yet maintaining tolkiens feel of a child's story. The extended edition adds a little more depth and slows the pace a little which I feel was needed and I loved it.

Maybe some feel it is a little cheesy but so what, it works. If you want more grit then watch game of thrones!

_________________
Veni Vidi Vici

We have to remember this is a movie, to those who read the Hobbit, realistically the book would make one film. So they had to flesh it out with more action and turn it into a cinematic experience. Also they have to make money. The reason why films are produced or cancelled ultimately it's caused by money whether it's direct or indirect. So on that note I'm not upset about most of the changes in the film to the book. The only things that really made me wonder why was the scene where Bilbo tackles and kills the orc to defend Thorin. I didn't particularly like this because in the book the first enemy Bilbo kills is a spider and this ultimately leads to the naming of his weapon and growth and understanding of his own strengths and was very important in the development of Bilbo. Other than that I really am not too fussed because the option is there to those who prefer books or those who hate reading and enjoy entertainment through a visual medium.

Although I really hope they leave out the scene with the master of Laketowns chamber pot in DOS. It's in the new production vlog

Apparently Bombur still doesn't have a line, and we're two-thirds of the way through the trilogy ... some characters just get no love!

_________________
See my WIP thread here. viewtopic.php?f=50&t=25624

No, it is not. May I ask if you have ever read the book? If, then you should know that most of these fights have not been fought in the book.

I've read the start of the hollywood reporters review: "making for plenty of peril, warfare, theme-park-ride-style escapes and little-guy courage"

So sad.

This line from another review might have some truth in it:
"There comes a time when we must stop kidding ourselves. These ‘Hobbit‘ films – with ‘The Desolation of Smaug‘ representing the shank of the trilogy – are not real movies. These are exploitation films for Tolkien nuts, for enthusiasts of the original ‘Lord of the Rings’ movies and for audiences so hungry for high fantasy they’ll gobble up whatever is served to them and ask for seconds."

And I am one of them...

I think he was referring to the poster immediately above him, who complained about films where the heroes blast through the action without ever getting any knocks.

I might be careful in future- you may not have intended it, but the tone of your response was super-condiscending.

_________________
Available for Commissions!

Check out my blog: http://yggdrasilpainting.wix.com/yggdrasilpainting

Thanks, I fully understood what he was referring to. And yes, my response was super-condescending. I am a bit too emotional when it comes to Tolkien books. That is why I am stopping now to comment further.

So you fully understood what I was referring to, yet you still decided to take what I said out of context? Really, adding in action makes perfect sense, would you really be able to watch a movie where the main characters are stupid enough to come in 2 by 2 to get captured? And on a website like this, it's generally a good idea not to be condescending to others.

_________________
"Leave Sauron to me."
If you're in the Raleigh, NC area, let me know.

I honestly think "theme park ride" IS a new genre of film. Traditionally action sequences are there to serve the story. Traditionally they are expensive, messy to shoot and hard to do retakes, so you only want a few of them and you want it to really stand out.

As budgets for a small number of films have soared (while everything else goes a'begging), its now possible to shoot films that are essentially one big action sequence. Especially when the industry has staked the family silver on 3d super FPS IMAX whatever thing.

The Hobbit pt1 was not such a movie, but it wasn't entirely divorced from the concept. The mountain giants sequence was a big lot of meaningless nothing which pretty much existed to show off some special effects. Then then led into the Goblin Town action sequence which climaxed with a similar lot of not-a-lot showing off the green screen and special effects and 3d technology.

At the same time, the Hobbit pt1 was also the film that gave us the dinner party, the relationship between Thorin and Bilbo.

It's all a bit of a curate's egg. The "theme park" elements sit awkwardly with moments of genuine drama. It's not as if the older trilogy was immune from this, but the original felt a lot more restrained. Crucially, the action sequences packed an emotional core which made them memorable. The sequences were constructed in a way that let the audience suspend disbelief. That suspension is a tricky thing to sell. It's a combination of acting, directing, writing and mood making. We know in most action films the goodies will win and live happily ever after. The best action films allow us to doubt this for a little while. Few sequences in the Hobbit pt1 really allow us this doubt. It's a pity.

As to why, we could be here all day. I suspect a key reason is the extra number of "controlling" agencies involved. There's now two major studies (WB and MGM), New Line, Jackson's own company and who-knows-how-many funders.

I'm glad it was made, was happy to see it, will be happy to see the next two films, but none of them will have the charm of Fellowship.

_________________
Dreaming of getting back to painting...any month now.