The Glade 4.0

What do I remember of the hobbit...

Singing..

Six meals a day while walking.

A dragon killed by a single arrow and I could be wrong about that.

So if ya think about it, the first movie could just be a musical.

_________________
Raell Kromwell

The Battle of the Five Armies should take up half the movie, at least.

Re-reading it to my kids a while ago, I realized that the Dwarves are actually pretty incompetent, until the final battle. As much as I love the book, it's kind of problematic, really.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

I remember about the same. It has been a while since I read it. I'm giving Jackson the benefit of the doubt for now.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

It's a kids book and the ring was just a fancy magic ring with absolutely zero, zilch, nada evil undertones (that wasn't pulled out of Tolkien's *** until after he began writing LOTR). Bilbo didn't go into a epileptic world of horror every time he put the ring on (and he did often).

I very much doubt it will feel like the Hobbit (and I am not a fan of that). LOTR at least "felt" like the books even if quite a few things were changed. Stretching it out far worse than any Caramello does not bode well.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Huh, good point. Never really thought about how Jackson presented the Ring ... But wasn't some of that also because Sauron's power was growing, and the Riders were actually looking for it? So, yeah, it should just be a ring of invisibility. Everyone and his cousin has one of those (yeah, except for me, the thief )

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

I'm sure that was retroactively jammed in there, but when Tolkien wrote the Hobbit the ring was nothing more to him than just a cool trinket.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

Me likes!

And I make a prediction now: The Hobbit Trilogy will have a second ending, after Bilbo's return to Bag End, (because PJ loves endings) in year 2951 of the third age of Middle Earth. The word "Hope" will be spoken (probably by Galadriel).

I've pretty much arrived at the conclusion that I don't need to see The Hobbit (parts 1, 2, or 3) in theaters.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

But you will! It is your density.

Yeah, me no likey. No wonder I don't fit into this world.

To wit:


Heck, this wasn't even the part I mean to quote and kvetch about, but .. backstory? He's a dragon, has been sleeping on a pile of jewels for a couple of hundred years. There ya go.



Yeah, I don't need to see that. So much for the mutual dislike between Elves and Dwarves.

And the whole Gandalf smack-down thing should have been nipped in the bud ten years ago (or whatever).

I should never have told my kids this was coming out, probably gonna have to go see it and will end up coming out with a bloody tongue.

_________________
This cold and dark tormented hell
Is all I`ll ever know
So when you get to heaven
May the devil be the judge

This is the part I do have a problem with. But I don't with the Necromancer/Thrain/White Council bit.

While the new characters is definitely the *most* offensive bit, I'm annoyed that PJ can't leave a children's book about a whimsical adventure alone, and feels he must epic-ize and doom-and-gloom it. There's a reason the Appendices about Dol Guldur were in the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, and haven't been inserted into later printings of The Hobbit. And that's because it's not part of the same story, or for the same audience.

Throwing Dol Guldur in doesn't defile the world, the lore, and the core themes the way PJ's other changes have (elevating Arwen at the expense of Eowyn, the army of Elves at Helm's Deep, the stupid Ring-as-villain obsession of the films), but it does something worse:
Peter Jackson is stealing The Hobbit from children with his planned changes.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

I just don't have a problem with that...my kids still have the book (and I still have the books that I still read as often as I watch the LotR). I am desiring an adult retelling. It is kind of like the opposite of Lucas stealing Star Wars from adults...which I find more offensive. /shrug

To me, that's just selfish adults talking. But hey, we're GenX. The "ME!" generation.

I'm with Kaffis.

_________________
Les Zombis et les Loups-Garous!

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Tolkien had good story ideas, but was a shitty writer. I mean really crap. Salvatore's worst is less painful to read than Tolkien's best.

I didn't approve of all of P.J.s changes in LotR, but my complaints are for dramatic reasons (the horde of ghosts winning the battle of Pelenor Fields was very anticlimactic), not because Tolkien's work should be followed as somehow sacred. It's not. In fact, it requires major changes to be even paleattable as a story, let alone a movie.

I'll reserve judgement until I watch it. My major concern here is that I believe the Hobbit is too thin a story to support what he's doing to it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Warner Bros. losing confidence in 48fps for ‘Hobbit’. Huzzah! http://m.ign.com/articles/2012/08/08/th ... -48-frames

New trailer: http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/thehobbit/

New trailer looks awesome!

"If Bagginses loses, we eats it whole!"

Why is that a Huzzah?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Because 48fps sucks.

Yes, but why?

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Because it looks like a soap opera (30fps) or home movie (30fps or 60fps). FPS is to film what a canvas type is to a painter. >24fps removes the aesthetic that positions the work firmly in the realm of fiction and makes it feel too "real," which steals from it the production value and makes it feel more like a play (or a cheap '70s BBC show).

Sounds like the audiophile argument for vinyl.

_________________

I'm not arguing for filmmakers to not have access to the tool, but I can express chagrin for an aesthetic that I, quite frankly, hate. Much the same way people ***** about shakeycam or orange and teal.

There are many people who don't notice (or, even worse, like) that AutoMotionPlus bullshit turned on their television sets. That doesn't mean I want the technology removed. What I don't like is the mindset that "higher FPS is automatically better, because it's more."