Jules Winfield

Ok.

hahn

Finally caught this yesterday. After all the negative comments about HFR, I decided to watch it in plain 24 fps 2D. I did notice that the battle scenes got a little blurry and were difficult to follow. Which made me wonder, does HFR really have to be all-or-nothing? Could HFR just be used in fast action scenes and then fall back to 24 fps the rest of the time?

I enjoyed the film overall. I have read the book probably a dozen times, but not for a very very long time now. I decided not to refresh my memory of the details. I'm glad I didn't because I would have distracted myself through the whole film remembering what details were the same vs different from the book. I think Peter Jackson is aiming to tell a new version of the story and that's okay with me. The gist of the tale is intact and I'm willing to give him some artistic license to retell the story in his own way. He's earned it after LOTR.

PS. One little thing bugged me. After the eagles dropped them off, I was thinking, "The Lonely Mountain only looks like another half hour flight for the eagles. If I were them, I'd ask for another short ride."

musick

LOL ... Same as my thoughts .... The mass transit system in middle earth sucks
Thanks for dropping us off at the top of this mountain, now we have to work our way all the way down and then hike all that way

Why So Blu?

Yawn. If one knows the back story about the Eagles then you'll know why they weren't dropped off at the mountain itself. In fact, it's already been explained a couple of times in this very thread.

RocShemp

I've yet to watch the movie. Is the backstory explained in the film itself? If not, such an argument is as invalid as "well in the book it says that [insert explanation here]". It's okay to comment on book-to-movie changes but not acceptable to rely on a book to explain things that aren't properly addressed in the movie itself.

whoopdido

I agree with this. I gave one of the explanations as to why the eagles did what they did but I think the movies haven't done a good job at all of explaining the eagles and their motivations.

I can certainly see how anybody who hasn't read the books would wonder why the eagles wouldn't just take them all the way but that's because the movies don't explain anything about them. If you read the books, you'd understand, but in the movie universe, the eagles are a huge plot hole because their motivations aren't explained.

Kinda poor on Jackson's part if you ask me. In the first 4 movies, they show up like 5 or 6 times always at very important times. They actually play a huge role in the whole saga yet nothing is explained about them, which leaves many non readers to wonder why they don't do more.

The movies are bloated enough already, another 2 extra minutes to explain the eagles motivations wouldn't have been a big deal.

Why So Blu?

Ah, in that case no. The Eagles are addressed about as much as they were in the LOTR films. They do what they do and just are. I guess that's why it doesn't bother me at all, because I know their back story (from the book), so I can transfer that over to the film and it makes sense and doesn't bother me.

Apologies for jumping the gun there.

The Antipodean

Yes two lines could've made eagle scene smoother -- Bilbo asks why eagles can't fly to mountain, Gandalf explains why.

Why So Blu?

Maybe the extended cut will have some Eagles dialogue? That's always the possibility as they do talk in the book.

musick

Solid Snake

I actually wondered that too. Was weird. Soooooooo since I'm probably never going to read the books anytime soon.

Why the fuck are those eagles the way that they are?

resinrats

See movies have bad influences. Look at this guy trying to immitate what he saw at the movies!!

Why So Blu?

They're apathetic as hell. They don't involve themselves in the affairs of Middle Earth. They chill with Gandalf, because he's a God and they're Gods in their own rights. The Eagles just live and let live, but they hate orcs and folks that try to do them harm. They live on the highest peaks that are unreachable by men or anyone else.

Solid Snake

Ok. Kind of wish these films would present that. That would actually be a revelation for something like The Hobbit.

Talking about Gandalf. As a Wizard..he...doesn't really do much. Even in this film. Did..he do more Wizardy stuff in the books? Cuz LOTR sure as hell didn't make him too wizardy. Good character but not very wizardy.

RocShemp

Yeah, I remember that from the books. And pretty much what you said could have been explained by Gandalf in the LOTR movies (in a more Middle Earth-y way, of course ). And I'm surprised to read that it once again goes unaddressed in The Hobbit.

Supermallet

I think Gandalf does more wizardly stuff in the movies than in the books, actually. Tolkien didn't like magic and tried to use it as little as possible.

Josh-da-man

Not really. The whole idea behind wizards is that they are more wise men, advisors, and diplomats than bad-ass magic-wielders.

In case you didn't know, the Istari (ie, wizards) are pretty much a species unto their own. There are only five of them, and they are... the closest thing to describe them would be angels... sent to Middle Earth in the form of old men... to help fight the darkness of Sauron.

As mentioned in the movie, there are only five wizards in Middle Earth (Gandalf the Grey, Saruman the White, Radagast the Brown, and the two Blue wizards, who might be dead or completely off mission) and they are all two thousand years old.

Solid Snake

Yeah, I remember that bit from the film. Which only got more of my attention cuz there's so little I know of WHAT Gandalf is and what he can or can't do.

I just hate how what, in a generality, we KNOW what a wizard is doesn't exactly translate well in today's world. I like the character, love the actor more so therefore my interest in him gets greater. I just wish the films could kind of present that better.

Supermallet

Tolkien talks about the Istari in the Silmarillion, but even he doesn't explicitly write out what they can and can't do.

Also worth noting is that Gandalf bears one of the remaining elven rings of power, which none of the other Istari do. You can see it on his finger at the end of ROTK, when they're going to take the ship to the west.

RocShemp

It's a ring with some influence over fire, if I recall. Which is part of his penchant for fireworks.

By the way, I found it awkward when Galadriel was wearing her ring in the EE of FOTR. The elves removed their rings the moment that they perceived what Sauron was up to. As I recall, they never put them back on until the One Ring was destroyed.

Supermallet

No, they put the rings back on when Sauron was defeated and the one ring was lost.

And yes, Gandalf's ring channeled fire.

RocShemp

Thanks. I misremembered that.

Yeah. I also seem to recall that Moria was his call rather than Gimli's. Gandalf the Grey was known to be hasty and he actual said something along the lines of finally understanding when he encountered the Balrog.

Another thing worth noting is that, although powerful, Sauron was nothing compared to Morgoth. And even before the events with the One Ring, I believe Sauron was captured but talked his way out of it.

As for the Istari, here's a good article about them. I had to look it up because I recall there being more than five wizards. The article confirms that. The Five Wizards (Saruman, Gandalf, Radagast, and the Blue Wizards) were the chiefs of the other wizards.

Solid Snake

See? that shit is interesting. Little things like that could have added so much. But....sometimes so much little shit becomes too much shit.

Supermallet

Yes, Morgoth was more powerful than Sauron. Sauron was Morgoth's chief lieutenant (equal in rank with the head of the Balrogs) in the First Age. Sauron was also responsible for the fall of Numenor, by convincing the king of the Numenoreans to attack the elves in the west. Aragorn is descended from a line of Numenoreans who did not participate in the attack.

Most of this stuff is in the Silmarillion, which is interesting, but a horrid chore to actually sit down and read. Much easier to read a wiki article on it. You get the same info, but you won't be bored to tears.

RocShemp

You speak the truth. I have the Silmarillion and quit a third of the way through. Interesting stuff but it reads like a history book as written by someone who writes stereo instructions.

Didn't Christopher Tolkien publish a "novelized" version of the Silmarillion (under a different name, of course) a few years ago?