Solid Snake

To add in, Coppola changed up The Godfather. End result? One of the greatest films ever.

Not saying that The Hobbit is up to that caliber but adaptations will have changes to fit for time and etc etc.

Supermallet

Jackson made several positive changes to the LOTR books. For example, in the books, Aragorn was ready to take the throne of Gondor from the first moment he appears. By changing his motivations so that he was reluctant to take the throne, it created a lot of dramatic tension that wasn't present in the novels. Similarly, he completely excised the Tom Bombadil sequence, and a good thing too. Bombadil completely drags down the pacing of the first book.

However, he made other changes that were for the worse. The sequence where Aragorn wrests control of the Palantir from Sauron is one of the most exciting parts of the books. In the movie it's this lame weepy thing with visions of Arwen and such. Robbed the sequence of all of its power.

RocShemp

I disagree on Aragorn. Making him a wishy-washy hero was a bad choice. I actually prefered the wandering badass with a broken sword that is Aragorn in the books.

But I do agree that removing Tom Bombadil was for the best. I just wish they could have still worked in the Barrow-wights (sans Tom's participation) to better set up the death of the Witch-king. The way he was so easily dispatched in the movie felt anti-climactic and was cheesy "girl power" bullshit. The fact that a woman killed him should have been a "well whattaya know?" moment (as it was in the books) rather than the main bullet point of the sequence.

Why So Blu?

With an assist from Pippin. Pippin stabbed the Witch King in the back of the knee, which brought him down. Just like in the book. It works fine. The fact that "no man" could kill the Witch King had already been foreshadowed earlier, so it should not have been a surprise.

DJariya

Saw it today and enjoyed it.

I don't have the knowledge to analyze frame rates, but it looked good to me. I chose to see it in 2D. Good special effects. Middle earth looked just as good as it did 9 years ago when we last saw this world. Really enjoyed Martin Freeman as the younger Bilbo. The character was fun and I liked his interactions with the Dwarves.

Surprised to see all the returning actors from the Lord of the Rings movies.

I vaguely remember watching the Ralph Bakishi cartoon and I recall it was nowhere near as entertaining as this movie.

IMDB says that Parts 2 and 3 are in post production. So just like the Lord of the Rings movies, all of those movies were shot together? I'm sure they will do some pickups and shoot some extra scenes during the course of the next 2 years.

When the LOTR movies were released on DVD years ago, New Line released the theatrical cuts 1st and then the extended cuts a year later. Now that BD is the prevalent home video medium, anyone think the theatrical and director's cuts will both be the BDs next year? And here's another question, who has the home video rights? MGM or Warner/New Line? Warner's BDs are really hit or miss. They don't seem very fond of doing commentary tracks or really long indepth documentaries. So I'm worried The Hobbit may get shafted next year with some fluff EPKs and No commentary from Jackson.

Supermallet

Aragorn is still a badass through all three movies. He's just a badass who's reluctant to take on the ultimate responsibility, which I feel gives him more dimension as a character, and makes it far more satisfying when he finally does make the decision to accept his destiny. In fact, that is part of why I found the palantir sequence so disappointing. It should have been Aragorn's declaration to Sauron that Gondor once again had a king. Instead it was just a bunch of nothing.

God I hate the extended cut of ROTK.

Supermallet

I predict the same release schedule as the LOTR movies. Theatrical cut first, with some behind the scenes stuff but not the most in-depth features. Then later the extended with commentaries and the very in-depth documentaries.

RocShemp

It's not that it was a surprise. It's how it was played out. And you mean Merry. Pippin was trying to save Faramir. As for Merry's assist against the Witch-king, it works best in the books because it was an enchanted sword that he used against the Witch-king. The way it came across in the movie, anyone could have killed the Witch-king.

Then again, I was always bothered by the whole Weathertop sequence in the first movie. I don't recall how it played out in the books (an excuse to re-read them, I suppose) but it bugged me that Aragorn was able to make all 9 Nazgul turn tail and run. It's weird that one guy with a torch and sword could defeat all of the Nine (and later some chick and her hobbit pal could kill the toughest one of them) but the Witch-king made Gandalf his bitch.

And speaking of that encounter, I get people liked to see them square off because of the "I will break him" line and how it helps explain Gandalf's missing staff later. However, the "fight" was a cock tease that once again deflates the menace of the Witch-king. He brandishes a flaming sword and makes Gandalf's staff shatter (explode, really) but then promptly sticks his tail between his legs and runs away when he hears the horns of the soldiers from Rohan? Really?

To me it was the opposite. It was refreshing to read of Aragorn in the book because there was no reluctance. He had a goal and the drive to see it done. The only reason he was delayed was because of the duties placed on him by Elrond. And, yes, the palantir sequence in the movie pales compared to that of the book for the reasons you mentioned



The only things I liked about it where the Christopher Lee cameo and at least a half-hearted attempt to show the houses of healing sequence (since the theatrical cut got nothing at all).

RoboDad

Reading isn't your strong suit, is it?

Let me say it again for you. The change to the way Bilbo found the ring was perfect in the movie, and a necessary change.

The change to the character of the Witch-king was unnecessary and arbitrary. Does it bother me? Yeah. Is it going to ruin the movies for me? Not a chance.

I really don't get the way some people worship at the altar of filmmakers. They are human beings, nothing more. It is possible to like some of the choices they make, and dislike others, all the while still enjoying the movies they create. If you can't deal with that, then, well, it sucks to be you.

arminius

Agree with both points, and Bombadil for sure. I wonder if and how Beorn will be handled in the next movie.

There was no change in the actual mechanics of the scene. The movie just showed the ring being lost which must have happened in the book. It was just not stated.

Troy Stiffler

All the bitching. Glad I never read the books!

Why So Blu?

Well, by those guidelines of no man being able to kill him, Merry didn't really need an enchanted sword to harm him. Merry is a hobbit, not a man. It doesn't matter. Eowyn still wins, with an assist by Merry. Enchanted sword be damned.

As far as the Weathertop sequence Aragorn just bought the crew some time by disabling them with the fire torch. The same can be said with Arwen and the water from the river washing them away. Hell, Arwen could have probably killed Witch King in that group if she had her levels up. lol

And as far as Witch King destroying Gandalf's staff and then shaking the spot, Witch King still had an army to lead. He was the main person in charge, not the deformed orc.

Michael Corvin

Better than reading about which frame rate is superior.

RocShemp

True. But, as I said, the comment in the book was anecdotal. Not the main sticking point. That's part of what bothers me with the movie version.

I coould buy the notion that Aragorn bought them time if the Hobbits ran away while Aragorn was still fighting and they regrouped afterwards. As it plays out in the movie, Aragorn kicks their asses soundly and then attends to Frodo in that same spot before he decides they need to leave. Made the Nazgul far less threatening. Which of course made it bizarre when the other two films tried to pass them off as a credible threat.

You're probably right.

Which is all well and good. However, you don't leave an opponent on the ground without finishing him off. Gandalf was beaten. The Witch-king should have delivered the killing stroke and then regrouped with his forces. Instead, he exposed his back to a living opponent. That was a dumbass movie.

In any case, it seems even Peter Jackson thought it was a shitty scene because in the audio commentary of the extended cut he admits he cut the sequence because it made the Witch-king come across like a pussy when he ran away.

Why So Blu?

Yeah, I've listened to commentary, but PJ doesn't know what he was talking about there. I think Walsh and Boyens had been partaking of the mead while recording. It was such a bummer to have seen the trailer for the ROTK that promised an encounter with Gandalf only to have it forshadowed and then completely ignored. Technically, the Witch King did break Gandalf. The same buzzkill happened when they left Saruman hanging out in the tower. That whole chapter is pretty much "The Voice of Saruman" chapter in the book. Oh, and the same goes for The Mouth of Sauron chapter that also got completely bypassed in the theatrical cut.

Damn it, I feel a LOTR EE marathon coming on.

RocShemp

I did a marathon of EE's this week. It always truck me as funny how sloppy the EE of ROTK turned out. Although I loved the Mouth of Sauron sequence, it didn't have the same impact of the book since that sequence was presented in a non-linear fashion in the book. But what actually bugs me about the sequence is how the horse, corpse, and head vanish once the gates open. I guess they wen't wherever the horses of Aragorn's troops vanished to during the final charge in both cuts.

Why So Blu?

True that. He also didn't die in the books, he just went back through the gate.

RoboDad

There were two changes to the mechanics of the scene.

First, in the Book Bilbo found the Ring before he encountered Gollum at all. That may be a small difference, but it makes the connection between Gollum and the Ring (in Bilbo's mind) less likely, where in the film it would be more logical for him to assume that either Gollum or the orc had dropped it.

And second, as I already mentioned, in the book Gollum kept the Ring hidden on his island, and went to retrieve it after losing the riddle game. In the movie, he simply searches his own "pockets" for it. That changes the tension level since Bilbo doesn't have time to wonder whether Gollum is even coming back.

However, as I have already said (for the third time now), THAT CHANGE WORKED BEAUTIFULLY.

musick

saw it this afternoon and thought it was great
only disappointment was the repetitiveness of the score

looking forward to the rest of the story

bunkaroo

Finally saw it today. I haven't read the book in over a decade so there was no "oh they left this out, they changed this" going on in my mind. Just seeing it as movie.

Even with tempered expectations, I was mildly disappointed. I didn't hate it, but there was no magic there for me like there was with LOTR (which I also saw as an adult). The pace in this was not good, and it just seems like Jackson was pulling every LOTR trick out of his bag. Really felt like a retread. I gave it 3.5 and that feels generous. I saw all the LOTR films twice in the theater. This one I will probably not see again until the extended cut is out. Unless I get some kind of free ticket, I won't be bothering with any HFR viewing.

Jules Winfield

Haven't read the books so I bring no baggage. I mostly enjoyed The Hobbit. Things slow down a bit in the middle but pick up with the rock monsters. Highly enjoyed Gollum's scene. As for HFR? It was too distracting for me at the beginning, it seemed like everything was in a slight fast forward. When I adjusted, it was fine but I didn't see anything to get excited about. The CGI wolves chasing Radagast did not look good at all. The Trolls looked extra fake to me as well. Gollum looked great though as did most of the Goblin cave sequence. I kind of wish I hadn't seen the HFR because it took me out of the movie at times. Instead of being excited about improving the look of movies, I wish people would excited about improving story. Oh, well. The Hobbit was good though, not great, not bad, just good.

redrum

Ya i also don't understand why they reused the LOTR score, not that i mind it that much cause its awesomeness but seemed lazy

BuckNaked2k

Technically, it's a new score, but Shore kept the original themes/musical motifs in tact from LotR...i.e., the Shire theme, etc.

BuckNaked2k

My sentiments exactly. Overall, I liked the film, but I couldn't shake the notion that there is probably an outstanding film somewhere in there around 4-5 hours, instead of the 8 hour+ morass we are getting.

Since I'm one of the curmudgeons mentioned in this thread, I saw it in 2D/24fps. I simply don't do 3D, IMAX, HFR, whatever the flavor of the day is. For those who do, please enjoy.

Some quibbles:

- Not all of the Dwarves looked like Dwarves. Some seemed too slight of build, and lacked the heavier facial features we have come to expect.

- The cameos of the LotR characters seemed forced. Was this a big reunion or something? Some of the actors have aged considerably in the 12 years since LotR began, and it showed (yes, yes, imagine that).

- Too much CGI.

- As I mentioned above, too bloated overall, with many of the sequences more appropriate to extended editions.

musick

that whole scene looked CGI'rific not jut at HFR

I understand why they re-used the cues (I loved the original score as well) just as I don't criticize the movie for being similar to LOTR since they both exist in the same world
....but they were wayyyy too overused and predictible as to when they were going to come