I wish I could already see it... I've won free tickets yesterday, but it's for 11 am... So I gave to go to school and I can't go..

Nope and my mum doesn't even let me be "sick"

Finally....In a few hours I am ready to meet Bilbo and Gandalf again

I can't see it on the fourteenth....poor me, but I don't want to be trampled by crazy fans (even though I am one) and get killed....I'm going to see it next weekend. I can't wait to see the part when bilbo faints after reading the contract. Oooooooo and when gollum tells himself to shut up and bilbo thinks he's talking to him and gollum says " I wasn't talking to you!" it will be epic! Who is everyone's favourite character!? Mine are Bilbao and gollum......huh? Who is y'all favourite ( yes I am from the south) ...........omg! Excitement!!!!!

Never in my life have I felt so much disappointment than watching the hobbit.

It took all of my willpower not to walk out of the theater mid movie.

 

Funny thing is there was a guy handing out hobbit books to anyone who wanted one. They were the neat ones with the green covers too. Something good came out of that trip in the end.

Yeah, I guess Arath's expectations were a little bit too high.

I don't have any expectations for the movie itself, since I know that I'll eventually like of it, but going to a good movie theater is an experience of it's own already, since I rarely do that.

And why to get that disappointed anyway? I always remind myself of the fact that there's the book, there's the movie and both of them can be good in their own ways.

In the end, whether it's movies or television series that we watch, whether it's books that we read or good music that we listen to, it's all supposed to entertain us, so why not let them to serve their purpose?

And in my opinion, reading is fun, 'cause with good imagination, you can let the text itself take you on a journey, but then again, watching movies is fun too. You just have to live the experience, like you'd be one of the actors in the movie. Forget that you even went there to watch a movie, 'cause the only way to truly enjoy of it, is to become one with it.

That's my way to think about things.

Now, back to daily things and by tomorrow, I'll go and watch the movie by myself.

Oh she liked it at least she tweeted that

Yeah, pretty much what Fornad said.

Just got home from the premier and I gotta say....I LOVED it! But, if you're a die hard purist with more than an air of skepticism, you might want to hold off. I'd say it was maybe....85% accurate, depending how you wanna look at it. Like Fornad said the movie did an AMAZING job of capturing so many scenes from the book, almost exactly as I pictured it myself. But of course there were other things that weren't quite as I imagined. Also the preview is really misleading IMO. You learn to appreciate the dwarves, and their look, as you experience them. Your slowly introduced to Thorin instead of the dramatic light backing scene you see in the trailer. And I wasn't a huge fan of Thorin's look at first but, again, it grows on you...

I also loved how they implemented the songs. Even from the Goblin-King. No other fantasy book to movie adaptation has ever really implemented entire songs and this is how it should be done.

And I'll second the sentiment that you should probably see it in 2d. The still shots were simply a-maz-ing. But unfortunately most of the movie is in motion, and often times with a lot going on, which tended to make the view a little blurry. 3D technology has a way to go IMO, so I'd stick with the 2D unless you just ABSOLUTELY love 3D. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't phenomenal either. Meaning, I don't think it's worth it.

 

Anyways I'm really tired so I'm gonna pass out. But I look forward to hearing other's thoughts and discussing the film more!!! And I know many of you are wondering, so this will be the closest to a "spoiler" I'll give, so beware....

.....but they do use orc alongside goblin.

Hail Oerath! I once stirred in these parts in the final age of 2010 but have slumbered within the mountains since. Glad to be re-awakened.

"Now I feel like wanting to embark on a glorious adventure across the world. Sadly, traveling is not my kind of thing, so I'll pass for now, but in future.. Well, who knows?"

Neither was Bilbo!! And look how that turned out...

But I'm glad I wasn't the only one who thought the 3D was a bit much. I'll probably be seeing it again tomorrow in 2D. Can't wait. Ah, and Cate Blanchett played Galadriel and I agree she was perfect for the role. They did a much better job at capturing her...influence. They made it clear that she was an elf way beyond the years of Elrond and her opinion meant more than most others combined. Unlike in the FOTR, where most people thought she was some random elf queen who was corrupt and greedy for power.

Please Arath, tell us why you was such disappointed.

Oerath, your words are so true. I thought the same.

I saw the film yesterday, and I liked it. First of all there are a lot of discussions about 3D and HFR. I liked the 3D and I had no problems with it. It looked so real, a great experience. Definitely high quality. It's different for every person if they like 3D or not. Some people get dizzy, others really enjoy it. And I definitely enjoyed it.

And now about the film itself. I think, like oerath said, you need to make a difference between the book and the film. It's such a difficult task to make a film from such a popular book. I liked the way they put the story on screen. Even when some things were a bit different, I think it's good. I mean if you make a film you make something people will enjoy watching. And I think that turned out very well. For example the scene "Riddles in the Dark". It was quite true to the book, and very nice to watch. I liked the scene when the dwarves came at bag.end . It was shorter than in the book, which doesn't really surprised me, because I don't think much people would have enjoyed it that way. Even when it wasn't complete true to the book, I don't think you may say it was "really" different. I loved the scene with Galadriel and Mithrandir. Although this wasn't in the book, I think it was quite the same style. Most scenes were how I imagined me. So that was cool. And of course, the last shot of the film. Amazing! I'm so curious. I really want to hear "The voice of Smaug"

I thought the 3D was great when you could see it. Mainly in scenes like the Goblin city, you couldn't really see the goblins running in the background because it looked so blurry from the 3D. I'm looking forward to seeing it in 2D tomorrow to see if there really was a "worth it" difference. Maybe I'll appreciate it more once I don't have it...

Yeah, I have an awesome teacher that likes lotr and such. He so awesome!

Kili is indeed sexy, but gollum is sexier. I would like to understand what in thenameof Precious the white Orc is! Is he like some weird Orc that is white from some other Tolkien thing? I so confused!

I haven't seen the film yet, but I think it's just Jackson's invention of a 'zombie orc'. I hear it's Azog.

Azog was slain [Appendices to The Return of the King], but the filmmakers appear to want to bring him back from the dead so he can annoy Thorin, or particularly annoy Thorin anyway.

Not sure though. Again haven't seen the film.

Orcs reproduce sexually [after the manner of the Children of Eru], and Tolkien did mention female orcs too, in a letter. So orcs can have sons and daughters.

But film question: is Azog portrayed as a 'zombie orc' in the sense that he has been brought back from the dead?

Or is this speculation based on his death in the books, and his colour and presence in the film?

So does the first film reveal [or imply] that Azog has been brought back to life by someone, maybe the Necrodancer?

Or... no? Maybe it doesn't?

Thanks Durin.

I got that idea from a thread titled 'Azog the headless zombie orc' at another site, and that was based on this WB character brief for Azog:

'It was said that Azog the Desecrator fell many years ago in the great battle between the Orcs and the Dwarves. But now he appears again at the top of a deadly horde of killer orcs. For Gandalf begins a race against time because he has to figure out the connection between the most dangerous orc commander and the growing evil, which takes shape in the ruins of the fortress of Dol Guldur. One thing is totally clear: no one will deter Azog from his intention to destroy Thorin Oakenshield’s companions to the last dwarf.'

I must admit, the implication here, at least, might be that Azog was raised from the dead. Although granted 'it was said' qualifies that he 'fell' many years ago.

But again I have to rely on those who have seen the films, at the moment.

Thanks Marghana. Hmm, only an arm? Someone else must have confused Azog with a different orc who lost his head, unless 'headless zombie orc' was a bit of a joke title.

An iron gadget? My guess is a can opener. Probably wrong though 

INCLUDES A FEW SPOILERS!!!

 

 

 

A few months ago I saw one of the Underworld films in 3D and wasn't impressed, so given the option of 3D or 2D for the Hobbit I chose to watch it in 2D. At the time it seemed a good choice because my screen was virtually empty as everyone else had crammed into the 3D viewing. Having read a few of the posts here, I am really pleased I chose 2D (thank you Underworld).

Ten years ago I was amazed by FotR. I had waited all of my life to see it filmed. I was shocked that so many people hated it. I came here today half expecting the same - a lot of negative people who had pre-determined they were not going to like the film because they are Tolkien purists who hate any changes at all to their story. So far the reception has not been as bad as it was when FotR came out. Maybe after having seen the three LotR films people's expectations are different, so changes to this one have not sparked quite so much passion (or maybe those who really didn't like what was done to LotR have not bothered going to see the Hobbit???)

I love movies, so I was bound to like it, even though a few things did niggle a bit... The dwarves are a mixed bunch. PJ has done a good job of making each of them unique, but while some of them look like 'real' people, in real armour etc, others look so heavily made up with prosthetics and CGI, they appear cartoon-like. Several of them would have done better swapping places with a few dwarves out of Snow White and the Hunter. Balin was particularly disappointing. I always saw him as a strong warrior-like dwarf who took back Moria. In the Hobbit he looks like an aged rubber smurf. That said, I liked the other characters, although Radagast was maybe a little too wacky.

I wondered how they were going to stretch it out to three films. I thought Dol Guldur was going to feature heavily in this one. I guess that will now be the second film. I did like the inclusion of the Dwarf Goblin wars though. The Hobbit is a story about Dwarves as much as Hobbits, so it was good to catch their history. I think PJ would have done himself a big favour, however, if he had called the White Orc Bolg instead of Azog. Everyone who has read the LotR appendices knows that it was Dain, not Thorin, who killed Azog and how it was Bolg who lead the Orcs in the Battle of Five Armies. By necessity films tend to cut down on the number of characters and plots compared to books, but calling him Bolg would have saved a lot of problems. Maybe Bolg was at the battle where Azog was slain? Maybe even Thorin fought him there? We do not know for certain, so PJ could have elaborated with uncertainties rather than changing known facts. Unless, like Galin has posted, he is trying to link Azog's resurrection to the power of the Necromancer???

What else? I'm not a fan of musicals so I wasn't looking forward to the songs. I was surprised though. They fitted in great... A humorous one while they were washing up reiterated the Hobbit was written for children and was lighter than LotR... A solemn one in deep tones really echoed like deep caverns and made you realize these dwarves were different to humans... The goblin king's, too, was good and very animated.

Stone giants. They were mentioned in the book, but only in the distance if I remember correctly? These were a bit too close. Fun to watch, but there was just a bit too much flying debris and near misses for 13 out of 13 characters to survive. Under those conditions 1 out of 13 would have been more realistic. I would have rather seen them at a distance, as intended, with maybe the odd rock coming closer.

The trolls - Fantastic! I loved them. Some fantastic troll humour in there, right down to Bilbo getting snotted on. What's this? It came out of my nose! Classic.

Gollum - After his performance in LotR, we would all have been disappointed if Gollum had been any different. Riddles in the dark was just as it should have been. I must admit, these films have given me a much stronger sympathy for Gollum's fate than the books ever did. I despised Gollum in the books, even though i knew his history. The films do very nicely bring out his tragic corruption.

Anyway, 'd better not give too much away...

I do think it's unfair to be "determined to dislike something before they even see it," but more power to them if they don't like the films AFTER, purist or no.

Just fyi, I think a lot of these posts need to be labeled with spoiler alerts!!

**SOMEWHAT SPOILER ALERT**

 

 

 

I like to think I know ME fairly well, and I'll tell you I did not get the impression AT ALL that Azog was resurrected or a zombie or anything ridiculous like that. They said the dwarves believed he had died from being mortally wounded, but he was dragged inside and nobody ever saw him actually die. Thus, it is nothing but PURE speculation to assume he did die and was resurrected. I think people claiming he's a "white zombie orc" are either trying to be humorous, making up Tolkien lore to have fun with it, or just really like 80s hair metal.

I actually really liked the stone giants scene. IMO that was a good way for PJ to show his artistic interpretations without hurting the story too much. In the book it was like a sentence or two, but this was a good 5-10 minute scene with some of the best CGI in the film. Agreed it is way unrealistic that nobody really died, especially the way he went about it, but whatever, it's a movie...I've seen much worse, much more unrealistic survivals.

And just calling him Bolg definitely would've been a much better idea. Maybe even alluding to him being Azog's "son" and showing Azog's death. It really wouldn't have changed anything in the films as they are but would've pleased those who know the lore. Though Galin's right that it looks like one of those can/beer bottle opener two in one tools.

One thing I was somewhat disappointed with was Gandalf. He was way more Terry Brooks wizard than LOTR wizard. I don't want to ruin anything specific, but he does get some pretty elaborate magic use in. So it was cool and all and we all love fancy wizards, but it's the equivalent of adding in elves to Helms Deep. Simply to appeal to the masses. I liked Radagast's personality, but I didn't like his hat. I pictured a hat more like Gandalfs but brown, maybe with some patches in it.

I still find the goblin/orc thing interesting. There is a clear distinction between the two, though they were definitely fighting orcs in the Goblin War scenes.

I loved the movie. More accurate than any of the LOTR films but that's not saying much. I have a few more things but I don't wanna mention those until more people have seen it. Galin, you definitely need to check it out. It's really not even as long as Fellowship, maybe a little over 2 1/2 hours.

Durin, I thought that the necromancer was the witch king, because remember that Radagast brings the Morgul blade to Gandalf.

Balrogs, yeah know I know Sauron is the Necromancer. But no, he did say the Morgul Blade and it makes sense because Frodo later gets stabbed by the Witch King with it. Is there even a Mordor Blade?

I am surrounded by good points. But One of you mentioned that the blade Radagast found wasn't the Witch King's blade? Bull hockey! Forgive me but I am shocked that it was said. If you watch both films ( the Hobbit and Fellowship of the Ring)  you see that it is indeed a blade of the same make but I do doubt it was the one used to stab Frodo. Don't you remember? Morgul blades are destroyed by sunlight. That fine point was ignored in the Hobbit however. And if Gandalf had it and left it in Rivendell, how would the Witch King regain possession of it? Gandalf is quoted saying, "Evil things do not come into this valley but we still should not name them." (forgive me if I was a little off but you get my point.) The blade in the Hobbit must have been one of many. I always heard it referred to as A Morgul blade and not THE Morgul blade.

Durin, I was looking up the subject on the morgul blade thing and this is what I found "Upon Radagast's investigation into Dol Guldur he is attacked by the spirit of the Witch-king of Angmar inwhich Radagast is able to ward off his attacks and force the Witch-King into retreat and in doing so drops his Morgul-blade that he used to attack Radagast. Radagast is able to retrieve the Morgul-blade and moves to leave the fortress but before he is able to he notices a dark spirit within the fortress, one who he believes to be the Necromancer." Though it is said that no evil thing enters Rivindell, I think that means no evil thing enters Rivindell with out Elrond's permission. But apart from that yea I agree that that was the Witch King's blade.

Forgive me for sounding harsh Balrogs, I am sorry. And Smeagol, Bilbo does the right thing by not killing Gollum. I personally wanted to cry when I saw his face when he realized his precious was lost.