Hi

Has anybody been able to attend the premiere of the movie last night, or at least to find out when the first movie ends (at what point)?

Robin S.

It has already premiered?

I am just curious what everyones thoughts are about the Hobbit being a triology?

please ensure that you warn of spoilers if when you post of when movie ends etc.

I have tix to see at the Esquire IMAX 3D in Sacramento, on opening day 12/14. Can't wait!!!

The premiere is tonight. I am not going but I can see red carpet out my window, so trust me on that

Given the soundtrack, my guess is that that Unexpected Journey will end after the Eagles save the Dwarves from the Wargs but before they meet Beorn.

FWIW I have a friend who just left for it and will ask them the exact end point tomorrow.

BTW, C7, you guys should be selling your product here right now. There are so many Tolkien fans scrambling for anything they can lay their hands on. A demo of TOR by those people camped out next to the red carpet would be seen by thousands of potentially interested passerbys.

2025 if Peter Jackson gets his own way

I would if I was there! Skywalker, can we pay you to organise something?

Francesco

Tempting, but my work has me tied down during the week and pays pretty well

and this would be a bad thing???? :-)


Funny comment though.

I am not a fan of Jackson's LOTR trilogy. Looks great, but no substance.

I would have preferred to have had him do all the costumes and stuff, and have a proper director deal with the really important stuff like the story and pacing and acting

If it had been one 2 hour film for The Hobbit then I would go and see it (but not in 3D). Two films was pushing it...but three films

I have to say that I am a fan of the Peter Jackson films, and the animated 1970s film, and the books. I don't agree with some of Peter Jackson's decisions as a director, but I can understand why he made them. I enjoy them for what they are, an attempt to bring the books in to the visual media. Face it, film the books as written and they'd be unwatchable - tedious and disjointed. The books are great in written form, where the description builds its own picture and the book/chapter format means that you have no break in story for a set of characters but this really wouldn't work in film.

On the Hobbit films, I'm still hoping for two films of The Hobbit and then one for the Lord of the Rings appendices. The time Aragorn spent as Thorongil and the hunt for Gollum. This would make a nice lead in to Lord of the Rings from The Hobbit.

I think its pretty clear that the three movies are going to be:

Unexpected Journey - Bag End to Carrock
Desolation of Smaug - Beorn to the Battle of Laketown
Battle of the Five Armies - Erebor to Finis

Overlaid on that will be the White Council and siege of Dol Guldur. From the movie books we know Unexpected Journey contains the White Council meeting at Rivendell and Radaghast's early survey of Dol Guldur. I expect Desolation of Smaug and Battle of the Five Armies to both contain parts of Gandalf et al versus Dol Guldur.

Whilst I would have preferred two movies, there is enough material in and aorund the Hobbit to make three movies IMO. And I am cool with the downside being another year of Tolkien hysteria as its good for TOR and the town where I live

According to the IMDb the titles for the movies are "Unexpected Journey" (which we all know), "The Desolation of Smaug", and "There and Back Again". I kind of get the feeling that the first movie will end with a brief intro of Smaug. Perhaps with something like the half closed eye of Smaug as he pretends to be asleep in his lair.

"Whilst I would have preferred two movies, there is enough material in and aorund the Hobbit to make three movies IMO."

Even two movies would be pushing it, IMO. Three just doesn't make any sense to me what so ever. Especially when you consider each book of the LoTR is about twice as long as the Hobbit, and they got only one movie each. The Hobbit isn't that much longer then your average script. I am very concerned about this whole enterprise.

The Hobbit is a lot faster-paced with a lot less description than LotR. I can definitely see splitting it into 2 movies, but I was very surprised (and still am) by the announcement that it would be 3. I imagine there will be quite a lot of stuff from the LotR Appendices and Gandalf's quest to Dol Guldur.

I agree that, as Lord of the Rings benefitted being cut down somewhat for a movie translation, I think the Hobbit benefits from some expansion for a movie translation. Even Tolkien himself recognised that bringing the Hobbit more in line with Lord of the Rings required exactly the kind of expansion that we are seeing here.

Though I am not convinced that three movies are needed, I am happy, if for no other reasons, for having another year of Tolkien in the spotlight. It will have a positive impact on TOR and my home town

I first want to say that I am a big fan of both the LoTRs novels and films (not so much the Bashki animated movie) and perhaps it is the cynic in me; but ever since I heard they were doing a Hobbit movie I have felt uneasy about it. I hope I am wrong.

I dont mind the 3 movies

what i do not like is that Radagast is the new Jar Jar Binks

I am deducting that you have seen the movie, right?

Lots of favourable reviews now emerging after first watch:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/ne...jectid=10851910

I disagree with all the Peter Jackson detractors. Filming Tolkien's works was always going to be difficult, and as they say, you can't please all of the people all of the time, but judging by the reaction of the audiences in the cinemas where I watched them, Jackson did a pretty good job. The audience actually applauded at the end of Return of the King, which I have never seen happen in a cinema theatre before. All movies are, by necessity, adaptations. You can't just divide up a book into so many minutes of movie time per page and then film it verbatim, which seems to be what some of Jackson's critics are after.

I am looking forward to seeing how the Hobbit movies turn out. The casting of Martin Freedman in the role of Bilbo already has me on Jackson's side - Freedman is perfect for the role in my opinion. I'm sure he will do the book credit in his portrayal of its main protagonist and I'm glad to see him land such a big movie role. I'm not so sure about Sylvester McCoy being cast as ANYTHING in the movie though. I still hold him responsible for getting Dr Who axed when he got that role.

"I disagree with all the Peter Jackson detractors."

I don't beleive I've seen any detractors on the forums. For my self I find Jackson to be in the "good" category of director. I watch the LoTRs triology more than I watch Star Wars these days...Heck, I even like his version of King Kong. The only thing I question in his direction ishis decision to film in that hated format known as 3D! I have yet to see a movie that was enhanced by being in 3D, most of the time it is used for silly gag shots and to gouge movie goers for a $3 extra on the ticket price. And to a lesser extent the use of 48 frames per second.

My concerns are based firmly in the Studios camp, mainly the 3 movie deal for such a short book. I know Jackson has been quoted as saying he wanted to do 3 movies, but it isn't his decision to do so. Because this type of decision has nothing to do with remaining faithful to the subject matter, but everything to do with $$$$.

Jackson may have wanted to do three, but in the Hobbit production blogs, he still refers to it as two films, so it was very clearly an executive decision. Still not too pleased by it myself

I vehemently dislike Peter Jackson's rendition of LOTR. Nevertheless, I think he'll do a decent job with The Hobbit. The tone and themes of The Hobbit, IMO, are much less controversial compared to the trilogy and rather less serious in most respects. Consequently, it's hard for me to be quite so annoyed at editorial decisions and whatnot; put another way, I don't anticipate arguing with the new movies, or feeling the need to explain why the books are better to my wife, with nearly the same frequency as a decade ago.

"Consequently, it's hard for me to be quite so annoyed at editorial decisions and whatnot..."

Why? Why would the Hobbit be so different?

I haven't seen the movie, but the 13 minutes preview showed a very surprising Radagast. Now I'm afraid my players will lose all respect for him, or force me to play him like a nutty.

Personally I always believed he was a little kooky and envisioned him as such.

Not AS out there as Tom Babadil - but still someone who identifies more with animals than people do tend to be slightly awkward and off.

Whether it's the Cat-Lady, in apartment 9, or the dude on the bench with the pigeons.

For myself I have to say I was a little digusted by the, what appears to.be, bird crap in his hair.

Overall the PJ films were OK to me. It is his version of ME. You can't please everyone, fine. I got it. There were few things that I did not like, but those few things ruined the films for me.

Just watched the 13 minute " Hobbit" preview. My first thoughts being I would enjoy it more than LOTR as there is less attachment to the work and then they punk off Radaghast as the did with Gimli. Really, bird shit it his hair. What the hell?

Radagast is a recurring character in one of my campaigns. I have played him as a bit kooky and VERY earthy. "Nutty as a fruitcake" is an expression that comes to mind. He has a dog that answers his door (Woof!) and a raven that begs food from the Heroes (Food!). I feel that he has his interests which do not usually mesh with those of the Heroes and he's old and powerful enough to not care if that offends. To date, he hasn't had bird poop on him ... I won't say that he wouldn't though. I don't think being clean is of particular interest to him, though ... that earthy thing about him that I mentioned earlier.

During the last session, he handed a baby animal to several party members (the 3 that had gained 1+ Shadow Point(s) in the evening's session), telling them, "Here. Hold this <whatever animal ... a fox, a badger, and a hedgehog>. Feed it some of that milk <pointing>. Show it affection." If they did what he told them, at the end of the night, they lost one of their Shadow Points. After that (I described that they felt less "troubled"), I don't think they really minded his strange ways.