[worry]

So in Mirkwood, "You're hung like a deer" is a pretty big compliment, but the Rivendell elves would just look at you confusedly.

[QuickTidal]

worrywort, on 06 January 2013 - 10:22 PM, said:

So in Mirkwood, "You're hung like a deer" is a pretty big compliment, but the Rivendell elves would just look at you confusedly.

This is quite true. But is against the standard Elvish Purity Laws of 1206.

[MTS]

QuickTidal, on 06 January 2013 - 10:13 PM, said:

MTS, on 06 January 2013 - 11:06 AM, said:

Well, in general I agree with Macros, but I can see Tapper's point as well, as Thorin's 'badass moment' at the end of the movie was fairly uninspiring, which as QT says was probably intentional in order to build up the threat of Azog. Doesn't change much though, as it was still a bit of an anti-climactic moment. Thorin has his badass charge at Azog and then gets swatted down almost instantly.

I think as far as Thranduil on the stag goes, and why he couldn't have been on a horse like Elrond was is because Peter Jackson is likely trying to portray the Elves of Mirkwood as different from the Elves we see in LotR, who are mostly Sindarin as opposed to Silvan (although admittedly the Elves of Lothlorien are Silvan Elves as well). I didn't think Thranduil's mount looked terrible, but neither did it scream 'super cool' to me either, so make of that what you will. I will disagree on the Radagast sentiment though, I thought he was one of the most entertaining parts of the film.

Sindarin is a language, whereas Silvan more just is another word for "Wood" Elves (Part of me realizes how nerdy it is to know this)...but your point is well made nonetheless.

Yes, Sindarin is a language, but the Elves of Doriath are also known as the Sindar, whence the name of the language. Elrond belongs to them through his maternal side, as does Legolas through his paternal side, and Galadriel and Celeborn are related to them as well.

[Powder]

Nerds!

This post has been edited by Powder: 07 January 2013 - 02:46 AM

[polishgenius]

Not as good as I'd hoped but better than I'd feared. The stuff I'd been warned in advance was boring was actually not the stuff that was, imo... several of the fight scenes were dreadful, in particular the boxing stone giants and the escape from the caves at the end (and I wasn't hugely enamoured of the climbing lumberjack wolves either), but the whole sequence in Bag End was fine by me.

The whole of Riddles in the Dark was fantastic as well. On the other hand the use of Galadriel was dreadful. The increased goofyness of it was okay, not as cringeworthy as I was expecting, but it did at points make it feel like a substandard Bone, which should be the other way around.


One thing though- why did the swords glow in the presence of the mountain goblins but not in the presence of the Pale Orc and his crew?



In terms of the visuals, I saw it in HFR, and while I will never be a fan of 3D, the HFR was fine and did seem to alleviate (though not remove) my usual problems with standard 3D.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 08 January 2013 - 11:27 PM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 08 January 2013 - 11:06 PM, said:

One thing though- why did the swords glow in the presence of the mountain goblins but not in the presence of the Pale Orc and his crew?

Neither Glamdring, nor Orcrist glowed at all (probably to match Glamdring not glowing in LOTR)...even though they should have...but Sting glowed in all those situations I believe.

[polishgenius]

Looking back through the topic, I'm sorry QT but I have to question this one...

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Goblins were the result of the first Dark Lord Morgoth, corrupting captured elves and turning them evil, denying them the sun, stars ect, and keeping them penned up in Angband...the descendants of these are the goblins in THE HOBBIT and LOTR...Orcs, on the other hand were also made from corrupted elves...but these were of a sturdier, more powerful and resilient stock that Sauron himself bred to be stronger, faster and altogether more threatening.

Isn't that the difference between Uruk-Hai and Orcs? Whereas Goblins and Orcs are the same thing, it's just the word he used in the Hobbit. Did Jackson interpret that differently? I know he made Moria Orcs different to standard ones which I don't think Tolkien did, but they were still all Orcs.

QuickTidal, on 08 January 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

Neither Glamdring, nor Orcrist glowed at all (probably to match Glamdring not glowing in LOTR)...even though they should have...but Sting glowed in all those situations I believe.

I was trying to work out if Sting was glowing during the battle at the end. At times it looked like it was, but others as if it was only the firelight, or only doing it when he was right up close, despite it (in a really effective moment as it happens) being sensitive enough to detect the death of Smeagol's gobling from thirty yards. Whichever way, it was nowhere near as bright as before, and seemed inconsistent.

This post has been edited by polishgenius: 08 January 2013 - 11:35 PM

[QuickTidal]

polishgenius, on 08 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Looking back through the topic, I'm sorry QT but I have to question this one...

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Goblins were the result of the first Dark Lord Morgoth, corrupting captured elves and turning them evil, denying them the sun, stars ect, and keeping them penned up in Angband...the descendants of these are the goblins in THE HOBBIT and LOTR...Orcs, on the other hand were also made from corrupted elves...but these were of a sturdier, more powerful and resilient stock that Sauron himself bred to be stronger, faster and altogether more threatening.

Isn't that the difference between Uruk-Hai and Orcs? Whereas Goblins and Orcs are the same thing, it's just the word he used in the Hobbit. Did Jackson interpret that differently? I know he made Moria Orcs different to standard ones which I don't think Tolkien did, but they were still all Orcs.

The era differentiates them as I said. The goblins live in caves because they hearken back to Morgoth and the First Age...Orcs, on the other hand have no issues living out in the world...it's the same as difference between wolves and dogs...though both essentially cannae...they are QUITE different. Goblins specifically lead lives of hoarding, secrets and seclusion....whilst Orcs roam and pillage openly.

[Coco with marshmallows]

polishgenius, on 08 January 2013 - 11:32 PM, said:

Looking back through the topic, I'm sorry QT but I have to question this one...

QuickTidal, on 18 December 2012 - 11:42 PM, said:

Goblins were the result of the first Dark Lord Morgoth, corrupting captured elves and turning them evil, denying them the sun, stars ect, and keeping them penned up in Angband...the descendants of these are the goblins in THE HOBBIT and LOTR...Orcs, on the other hand were also made from corrupted elves...but these were of a sturdier, more powerful and resilient stock that Sauron himself bred to be stronger, faster and altogether more threatening.

Isn't that the difference between Uruk-Hai and Orcs? Whereas Goblins and Orcs are the same thing, it's just the word he used in the Hobbit. Did Jackson interpret that differently? I know he made Moria Orcs different to standard ones which I don't think Tolkien did, but they were still all Orcs.

The Uruk-Hai in LOTR (films) were the ones bred by Saruman, not Sauron.

Although Sauron bred Uruk-Hai, his weren't as resistant to daylight.

It's speculated that Saruman cross bred Sauron's Uruk-Hai with men to get the results, but I don't think its ever confirmed specifically.

[Aptorian]

[worry]

I think that's for the next Spyro game.

[Macros]

I think its said the uruk hai were orcs crossed with dunlander men

[Primateus]

I finally got around to seeing this movie yesterday. I liked it, it was good. It was better than good, it was great. It really spoke to my inner D&D nerd with its whole "We're going on a fucking quest bitches!". Rather like The Fellowship of the Ring.

[Khellendros]

I finally saw it last weekend. It was...well made. It didn't capture me the same way FotR did when I first saw that (maybe I'm too old now?!). There was nothing hugely wrong with it, but I feel it would have been a much better movie were it even just half an hour shorter. I know they're stretching it to three films, but some of the sub-plots seem so unnecessary for what is some very tight, concentrated source material.

So I could have done without Radagast, and though I thought seeing Galadriel, Saruman, Gandalf and Elrond all together would make my inner nerd sing with delight, it was actually really, really lame.

On the other hand, Azog was nicely menacing, Thorin did come across as a douche just like he should, and riddles in the dark was awesome in its creepiness. In fact, the bit with Bilbo standing over an unknowing Gollum with his sword raised, ready to strike him down, and then pity stays his hand...that was the one very powerful moment for me, and really all that was needed to harken and link back to LotR.



One of my friends who I saw it with, who has never read The Hobbit, the first thing he said upon leaving the cinema was: "So...that was about the Jews, right?" At first, I was nonplussed by this comment, but he elaborated further: "Well, they just kept going on and on about how they don't have a home, and their home was taken from them, and they want to take their home back, and they don't belong anywhere....it's about the Jews, right?"

I assured him that it was indeed not about the Jews, but all the same when I got back home I investigated....only to find out that, actually, yes it is. Tolkien said in an interview that he based the Dwarves on the Jewish people, even creating a Semitic language for them. Huh, the things you learn :/

[worry]

I thought it was too short. Too many of the moments were crisis moments, there should have been more nice breathing room scenes with the group just shooting the breeze.

[polishgenius]

worrywort, on 15 January 2013 - 12:51 AM, said:

I thought it was too short. Too many of the moments were crisis moments, there should have been more nice breathing room scenes with the group just shooting the breeze.

It wasn't that the film was too short, it's that many of the action scenes were too fucking long.

[worry]

None of them are particularly long, they're just not spaced out well enough with some breathing room scenes.

[QuickTidal]

Saw it again last night, and this time I DID see it in the High Frame Rate.

STUNNING.

Seriously, not only was the clarity impeccable, but the large action sequences had no blurring, and you could follow anything on screen you chose to, and could clearly see it.

It took about 10-20 minutes to get used to, but after that it was pure cream.

In fact, I wouldn't want to watch it at 24FPS now...it was just better as an experience in HFR.

Oh, and the movie itself holds up to a second watching well.

[A Demon Llama!]

I saw the movie yesterday as one of my friends wanted to see it. Keep in mind that I did not read the book nor any of the LoTR, and I don't plan to.

As someone who has not read the book the movie as a stand alone film is not good. What was really accomplished? Nothing practically. It was just an ending to set up the next movie. It was unnecessarily long and I didnt really care for any of the characters, especially since the ridiculous action scenes in which everyone should have died didn't even injure anyone, so I knew everyone will survive and there was practically no suspense. Visually the movie was great , I saw it in 3D and it looked really good. Nothing to complain about there.

So, I feel like unless you are a fan of the books or a big fan of the movies, this is just a so-so film.

[worry]

A Demon Llama!, on 19 January 2013 - 08:18 PM, said:

So, I feel like unless you are a fan of the books or a big fan of the movies, this is just a so-so film.

Helpful Hint of the Day: Try not to draw conclusions about wide swaths of strangers based on any single example, particularly your own. Own your opinion as the unique, idiosyncratic snowflake that it is.