[Morris Schæffer]

Originally Posted by Russian Army Knife

I liked it much more the second time. The levity and lack of danger in some of the action scenes is unforgivable, but didn't bother me as much. Martin Freeman's interpretation of Bilbo is still missing the x-factor to truly bring him to life, but I noticed many more character moments that I missed the first time.

.

I would reckon that x factor is simply the quest this time. Yeah yeah, it's a different book, written for kids, but Bilbo is never taxed as crazily as the fellowship was. I think that forges a bond between audience and character that is a little tenuous in the hobbit. I hope, and believe, that will change in the second movie.

This movie was a visual feast.

[Robert Gall]

I saw it again today, this time in 2D. Enjoyed it much more this time, and was much more immersed in the film itself as I wasn't being distracted by that stupid 48fps or even 3D.

The film was actually a lot funnier the second time around.

Yes it still has its problems, but I don't think the Hobbiton section is one of them. Instead, the chase in the Goblin caves still feels far too much like a video-game for my liking. Also, Azog still doesn't work for me - the fact that he's a CG character looks terrible especially when he's in scenes with orcs who are guys in costumes. The CG (or CGI) looked much better in the 2D version. The Gollum/Bilbo 'riddles' section is the highlight of the whole movie though - perfection.

Overall, probably a 7.5 or 8 out of 10.

[Labrazio]

I really liked it... I didn't think it was as good as the LoTR movies, but it was close.

***1/2/****

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by NeilMcCauley

. You don't have to chew scenery to look evil/duplicitous when your eyes, in Lee's case, is all it takes to get the point across.

Saruman's voice is capable of exerting powerful control over the the will of others, even some of those on the council. Gandalf warns about this in ROTK, and by then Saruman's power had been greatly diminished. This would have been Saruman at the height of his power.

Just something to consider.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Mr Expendable 2

Can someone answer me why -
Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

Select the black box below with your cursor to view the spoiler text

At this point, The Enemy is not yet aware the Ring has been found, and he is only a shadow of his eventual power. By the time of LOTR, Sauron had grown in power, was aware the Ring had been found and who had it, was exerting all his will and power towards recovering it, and actively calling it to him.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Sidebar:

I'm so happy that Christopher Lee was able to find success with this series. He's such a fucking incredible actor, but he was pretty much stuck in the genre "ghetto" for decades, and getting to play a vital role in one of the biggest, most successful series of all time...that's awesome, and he deserves it, and I'm still stoked about it, over a decade later.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Dead and Messed Up

Sidebar:

I'm so happy that Christopher Lee was able to find success with this series. He's such a fucking incredible actor, but he was pretty much stuck in the genre "ghetto" for decades, and getting to play a vital role in one of the biggest, most successful series of all time...that's awesome, and he deserves it, and I'm still stoked about it, over a decade later.

He's a hardcore Tolkien fan too. It was probably the cherry on top of his career to him.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Phell

He's a hardcore Tolkien fan too. It was probably the cherry on top of his career to him.

Not necessarily....He campaigned pretty hard to play Gandalf. I heard he was very disappointed when McKellan got the part.

Was anyone else really bothered by how Ian Holm sounded in the film? If the credits didn't tell me he was Ian Holm, I may not have realized he was Ian Holm. He just sounded so tired and slow and raspy in this film. And it's a problem when we're told that the parts he is in is going on concurrently with FOTR. In FOTR when he was writing that book and explaining Hobbits, he sounds totally different. In The Hobbit, guy sounds like he's got a major head cold, and its terrible.

[coyd]

Originally Posted by Phell

He's a hardcore Tolkien fan too. It was probably the cherry on top of his career to him.

He’s also the only person in LOTR and the Hobbits that has met Tolkien in person.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Not necessarily....He campaigned pretty hard to play Gandalf. I heard he was very disappointed when McKellan got the part.

I'm sure he got over it.

[Hipster Thor]

Also, if it were up to me when casting LOTR and Hobbit originally, i would never have picked McKellan, as great as he is. Probably because I would not have heard of him. I would have picked Christopher Lloyd. Just think about it for a second. Christopher Lloyd as Gandalf, and the awesomeness.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Not necessarily....He campaigned pretty hard to play Gandalf. I heard he was very disappointed when McKellan got the part.

He's a pretty confident guy, and has definite opinions on the way things should be. He was also upset about being cut from RoTK theatrical. But he has never shied away from being supportive of the films, and is very vocally supportive of Jackson and his fellow cast members.

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Was anyone else really bothered by how Ian Holm sounded in the film? If the credits didn't tell me he was Ian Holm, I may not have realized he was Ian Holm. He just sounded so tired and slow and raspy in this film. And it's a problem when we're told that the parts he is in is going on concurrently with FOTR. In FOTR when he was writing that book and explaining Hobbits, he sounds totally different. In The Hobbit, guy sounds like he's got a major head cold, and its terrible.

I'm bothered that great actors like Ian Holm and Ian Mckellen have to get old. That's all.

They could have cast a younger actor or put Freeman in age makeup, but it wouldn't have been right. You just handwave it and move on.

[Deschain]

It's hard to think of Lee as playing the good guy. He's always Dracula or a Sith or an evil wizard.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Phell

I'm bothered that great actors like Ian Holm and Ian Mckellen have to get old. That's all.

They could have cast a younger actor or put Freeman in age makeup, but it wouldn't have been right. You just handwave it and move on.

It didn't seem like an age problem, though. It seemed more like either an actor problem, in that Holm was just apathetic about the whole thing, or a Director problem wherein Jackson was careless about consistency and opined for a different characterization of Bilbo, or just did not care much about that scene. You have both Lee and McKellan giving performances of the exact same consistency as they did a decade ago, but Holm's performance had absolutely no energy in it at all. Sounded like he was about to drift off to sleep at any second. I can't speak for Holm's physical condition, but after seeing the film twice and so closely to the OT, it really stands out and I feel like Holm could have tried to put more into his performance, and if he wasn't able to keep it consistent with the OT, I don't think it should have been in at all.

[Labrazio]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Just think about it for a second. Christopher Lloyd as Gandalf, and the awesomeness.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Labrazio

I'm not saying he'd be better. He probably wouldn't. But when i first read the Hobbit, that's who I pictured Gandalf as and it was great.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

It didn't seem like an age problem, though.

Yes it did. Ian Holm is 81. He's 11 years older than when he filmed LOTR. His voice just sounds rougher from age. So does McKellen's.

[Labrazio]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

I'm not saying he'd be better. He probably wouldn't. But when i first read the Hobbit, that's who I pictured Gandalf as and it was great.

In your mind, did you cast Michael J. Fox as Bilbo?

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Phell

Yes it did. Ian Holm is 82. He's 11 years older than when he filmed LOTR. His voice just sounds rougher from age. So does McKellen's.

I did not notice a difference in McKellan;s performance other than that he was more nonchalant, which is to be expected due to the story. Ian Holm, however, when Frodo was telling hi about the party and Holm's face lit up with "It's today!?" it came close, so close to meeting Fellowship's. But it was still too slow and tired. It had nothing to do with voice roughness, in my opinion, but in tempo.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Labrazio

In your mind, did you cast Michael J. Fox as Bilbo?

No. I pictured Peter Dinklage as he was in Elf, but wearing Hobbit clothes.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

But it was still too slow and tired. It had nothing to do with voice roughness, in my opinion, but in tempo.

Yes, as if it were being spoken by an 81 year old man, who was 11 years older than when he first played the character.

People get old, dude. Their voices slow down, roughen, and get weaker. I feel like you're being sort of deliberately dense on this point.

[Dead and Messed Up]

"Bilbo, when this eagle hits 88 mph, you're gonna see some serious shit."

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Phell

Yes, as if it were being spoken by an 81 year old man, who was 11 years older than when he first played the character.

People get old, dude. Their voices slow down, roughen, and get weaker. I feel like you're being sort of deliberately dense on this point.

And if age interferes with their acting ability in a role, then I don't think they should be considered. Again, I'm of the opinion that any of the stuff taking place during Fellowship wasn't needed anyway. Christopher Lee is 90 years old, and in no way did he let age interfere with what part he had in The Hobbit.

[Dead and Messed Up]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

And if age interferes with their acting ability in a role, then I don't think they should be considered. Again, I'm of the opinion that any of the stuff taking place during Fellowship wasn't needed anyway. Christopher Lee is 90 years old, and in no way did he let age interfere with what part he had in The Hobbit.

I agree with the underlined portion, but I honestly that Holm did fine with his limited time, and as to Lee's perf, it seemed pretty clear Jackson was bending over backward to accommodate him; the guy spends his entire screen-time sitting in a chair.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

And if age interferes with their acting ability in a role, then I don't think they should be considered. Again, I'm of the opinion that any of the stuff taking place during Fellowship wasn't needed anyway. Christopher Lee is 90 years old, and in no way did he let age interfere with what part he had in The Hobbit.

People age differently, and Lee has a different kind of voice, for a different type of character. Bilbo's voice is supposed to be warm and soft spoken, which may have showed off his older voice to a greater extent. Saruman's is deep and imperious. And yes, I noticed even a difference in Lee's voice, although it was much less pronounced. Seriously, watch the original trilogy then go see the movie, you'll easily pick up ten+ years of difference in the voices of the older actors.

A goal of the movies is to tie them into the LOTR trilogy. You can disagree with that decision, but if they're going to do that, it's obvious why they'd put Ian Holm in there. I think you'd have to be particularly petty to not want to see Ian Holm as Bilbo again, if only as a tribute that requires you to handwave his age a bit.

[Robert Gall]

Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis provide the best acting in these movies.

[Hipster Thor]

Originally Posted by Robert Gall

Ian McKellen and Andy Serkis provide the best acting in these movies.

Bernard Hill.

[Robert Gall]

Originally Posted by Hipster Thor

Bernard Hill.

Also great, as is Sean Astin.

[Russian Army Knife]

If you're talking about consistency, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Bilbo finding the ring in The Hobbit is completely different than in the LOTR prologue. It's Ian Holm with a stretched-out face (to hide the wrinkles) reaching up a ledge and going, "Oh, what's this?! A ring!" all delighted. In The Hobbit he sees it fall out of Gollum's little pouch and picks it up.

[Your Ad Here]

Originally Posted by Russian Army Knife

If you're talking about consistency, I'm surprised no one has mentioned that Bilbo finding the ring in The Hobbit is completely different than in the LOTR prologue. It's Ian Holm with a stretched-out face (to hide the wrinkles) reaching up a ledge and going, "Oh, what's this?! A ring!" all delighted. In The Hobbit he sees it fall out of Gollum's little pouch and picks it up.

Not only that, but he looks like an entirely different person!


The FOTR prologue only shows Bilbo picking the ring up off the ground. It's not mutually exclusive with the explanation of how he found it there, as it doesn't show that part.


The sequence was changed from the sequence in the book, as the explanation in the movie is both more economical (to film) and more plausible to be honest. In the book Biblo finds the ring like a needle in a haystack, the only explanation being "the will of the Ring".


If that still doesn't work for you, Bilbo is notoriously fickle in his recounting of the event. The new Hobbit trilogy is being recounted by Bilbo from his POV. The FOTR prologue was ostensibly being recounted by Galadriel, from second hand information.


If that's not good enough, the Hobbit and LOTR books simply don't have 100% continuity either, and you have to handwave certain things.