T1B

I dozed off during the first half hour when apparently they told the entire history of Middle Earth during a dinner with the dwarves at the Bag End. Woke up in time for the start of the journey and it was pretty good from there.

It's been almost 40 years since I read the book so I can't really comment on how true the movie was to the story. I'm pretty sure they left it open for a sequel.

The butterfly flying right into my face was pretty cool.

My 9 year old is anxious to see it so we'll likely go in a couple of weeks.

Mikey, not just a sequel, but another 3fer, just like LOTR. And yes, the first half-hour did drag by, but once the story hit the road, it kicked into gear. The scene of riddles between Bilbo and Golem was almost worth the price of admission.

Almost.

Jay in Phoenix wrote:Mikey, not just a sequel, but another 3fer, just like LOTR. And yes, the first half-hour did drag by, but once the story hit the road, it kicked into gear. The scene of riddles between Bilbo and Golem was almost worth the price of admission.

Almost.

Yep the whole riddle sequence between Bilbo and Golem was excellent. I was being a little sarcastic with my comment about the sequel :wink: .

Great flick. As stated earlier it's a little slow in the first 30 minutes but really gets moving after that. Jackson's second best flick of the series. I still think FotR is his best movie to date.

While it's hard to argue with any of the 'Rings' movies about being Jackson's best, I would still vote for a couple of his earliest efforts as far as being more entertaining overall. "Dead Alive" remains a great gross-out horror/comedy. And "The Frighteners" from '96 with Michael J. Fox was, for its time, a great special effects romp that had some genuine scares and a lot of funny slapstick. While I can't argue with his technical prowess of late, his Tolkien movies just seem a little too self-important, as good as they are. It would be nice to see Jackson scale back and return to his roots, even if only for one movie.

Mikey wrote:It's been almost 40 years since I read the book so I can't really comment on how true the movie was to the story.

I suggest you read it again.

I haven't seen the movie, but I've yet to see a movie that can match the book, especially one from a master story teller like Tolkien. The Hobbit and LotR are such great reads, they should be read more than once in a lifetime.

War Wagon wrote:

Mikey wrote:It's been almost 40 years since I read the book so I can't really comment on how true the movie was to the story.

I suggest you read it again.

I haven't seen the movie, but I've yet to see a movie that can match the book, especially one from a master story teller like Tolkien. The Hobbit and LotR are such great reads, they should be read more than once in a lifetime.

I'm thinking about doing that when I get through the book I'm on right now, A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century by Brabara Tuchman.
It's a great read but at about 10 pages per night before I fall asleep it's taking me quite a while to get through it.

War Wagon wrote:especially one from a master story teller like Tolkien.

ever read The Silmarillion? well don't feel alone, nobody else has either.....the book was absolutely tedious

The Hobbit and LotR are such great reads, they should be read more than once in a lifetime.

agree, but for me the movies were about as close to hitting the mark as any books/made into movies I've ever come across

I've nothing against movies, but they pale in comparison to the narrative of a well written book. How can a movie possibly capture lines like this?

"Quite apart from the stones no spider has ever liked being called Attercop, and of course Tomnoddy is insulting to anybody."

The Hobbit, p145.

Wags, it's obvious you're a Tolkien fan. I was wondering if you have ever read the works of Neil Gaiman? While he does not write with the scope of Tolkien, his writing style and imagination are of equal merit. And he's a whole hell of a lot funnier. Try giving "American Gods" or "Anansi Boys" a chance when you have the time. Gaiman has a fluid and quirky style, with a Pythonesque element of very British humor sprinkled into his writing. Most of his books are written in Brit-speak and some familiarity with accents and dialect help. However, "American Gods" is very much an novel with the U.S. in mind, and reading it is like taking a road-trip through middle America while commiserating with all manner of Gods and Goddesses. Funny as hell and very rewarding.

Nice link Sam, that was a story I had not read. Pretty funny for Gaiman to give a Lovecraft Cthulhu story his own spin via a letter to Whatelely. Who knew an H.P. Lovecraft could legend could be funny? I take it you have read some of Gaiman's work before. I'm just beginning "Neverwhere".

Here's a nice twist on some nursery rhymes as viewed through the lens of detective noir.

The Case of Four & Twenty Blackbirds

i thought the Hobbit movie was pretty crap.

i thought the other LoTR movies were well done. this one cheapens the whole thing.

martin freeman was good, though.

finally got around to watching it on DVD borrowed from a co-worker. Very impressive indeed and hard to imagine how part 2 and 3 can come close to matching it.

No specifics, but I don't think it stayed quite true to the book... and I didn't care. It was that good. The scene at the end where the eagles come to the rescue was awesome.

King Crimson wrote:i thought the Hobbit movie was pretty crap.

It's hard to disagree. Why fuck up a beautiful story? It was more like a Universal Studios themepark attraction than a serious film. I guess I'm the only one who actually liked the dinner scene at Bag End, though. That much was true to the story as was the riddle with Gollum. The scene with the trolls was also well done. Basically whenever they stayed true to the story, it worked.

martin freeman was good, though.

I thought they had an excellent cast from top to bottom. It was talent wasted on a crap premise. The bubblegum action BS was awkward as a hardon in math class. Radagast was a JarJar Binks level fiasco. Even worse it was all totally unnecessary. The Hobbit was never intended to be a grand epic adventure. It's a smaller, more personal traveler's tale. They really could have done so much more with it. Even tying a trilogy together with material from the Appendices could have worked had they actually stayed on Tolkien's script.

That movie needed more chicks. TOTAL sausage party.




This is what I'm talkin' 'bout: