Sorry for the interruption, but we'd really appreciate it if you watched some of our videos!
All videos are written, performed, and edited by the Agony Booth staff, so they're just like the
recaps you know and love, only without all that annoying reading!
3/9/2013 7:38:06 PM
Why do you think the Nostalgia chick would be dissapointed, i liked it as much as i like fantasy, i just have a hard time figuring out why she is so down about it. It's good and the 7th doctor playing a wizard is just well, wizard.
3/9/2013 8:55:44 PM
She really has been beating around the bush on that, hasn't she? Nella had a blog post at Chez Apocalypse about the next two films, but she also took the quality of the first as self-evident. I wish one of them would outline it just to get their perspective, but it seems they're just going to go ahead with 50 Shades of Green.
3/9/2013 9:20:49 PM
Erh, well Lord of the Rings were a master-piece, it was tightly structured, putting structure into books that didn't have it so much, improved on source material and was an accomplishment in merely existing let alone being that good. There was never ever any real chance that the Hobbit would life up to that, and while Lord of the Rings where a tightly structured story where there was a reason for every-thing that happened. The Hobbit is more like a sight-seeing of middle-earth where we just go from point to point, because. And that's sort of how the book was, so it's a bit a hard to fix that. Then the movie also added a lot of things that has nothing to do with the current story, but ties this movie more together with Lord of the rings. Lots of people hated the movie spend so much time on those story elements, since they wont matter in the hobbit but merely build up to the lord of the rings, which are movie all-ready existing so what is the use hyping about it? Some also call it blatant fan service, that the movie relies on call-back rather than choosing to stand as its own entity. I how-ever.... enjoyed the fan-service, I liked the re-union to my childhood, this was personal for me. Lord of the rings were one of the most memorable biggest exsperiences of my childhood, so suddenly I am blind to the fact, I just went gawka over Frodo being there and being Frodo. So I can't hate it. And well... it's also difficult not to be looking forward to that day, ten years in the future, where I will sit down with some kid, and watch all six movies in prober order, that is going to be one hell of an exsperience. I can see how other people view them as flaws, and feel like it deminish the viewing exsperience, a scholar of script writing can tell you about the flaws.. hell even I can, but I like those things other people call flaws, I throughoutly enjoyed in that movie! People complain that that whole scene with Ratagast is pointless to the current plot, it only matters to the lord of the rings, and you could remove his scenes without that having any effect on Bilbo and his travels, and people are right! that is absolutely correct, you could remove a lot of stuff from this movie and make it a lot shorter, while still having the same basic Bilbo journey, remove any-thing that's obvious ties in to Lord of the rings and have nothing to do with the current story, and you would have a tighter more solid movie, and that's what people are complaining about .The version we saw in cinema should have been the exstended cut, and they should have removed all the surpeflous stuff, but.. I LIKED seeing it like that in cinema! I didn't want it to be any shorter..Sigh.. i'm rambling.. sorry. it's just.. individual taste I guess. this was just a very special movie to me due to the way I grew up and all of things I have grown up loving.
12/31/2012 11:28:05 PM
I waited till I was on vacation but finally managed to see the film. And what did I think of it?Overall,I would give Jackson’s Hobbit amoderately positive thumb’s up.Amongthe good points: Without a doubt, the best thing about the movie was the casting of Martin Freeman as Bilbo Baggins. Once you’ve seen him acting, you realize that there could have been no other actor to play the part. The Dwarves. I was impressed that Jackson managed to make many of Thorin’s Company reasonably distinct. I can’t claim to be able to identify all thirteen but I did know who Fili, Kili, Balin, Dwalin and Bofur were by the end of the film. (I exclude Thorin, for obvious reasons, and Bombur, since he’s always been “the fat one.”) I liked the fact that Jackson was able to shoehorn “Blunt the Knives” and the lament for lost Erebor into the “Unexpected Party” scenes. But I was disappointed that he didn’t include the Elvish ditty “Down in the Valley” when the Dwarves reach Rivendell. Though considering how the Elves are presented here and in Jackson’s Lord of the Rings, I can see why he didn’t (I’ll have more about my dissatisfaction with Jackson’s Elves in the “bad points” section below). I liked the Troll scene. Again, there was a certain amount of disappointment that Jackson excised the part where Gandalf bamboozles them with ventriloquism but his solution – Bilbo distracting them until morning – was OK. I wasn’t bothered by the Thorin/Azog thread Jackson introduced since there is some basis for it in the books. Azog does kill Thror and mutilate the body; however, that sets off the War of the Dwarves and the Orcs, it doesn’t happen at the final battle. Azog is killed at the final battle (by Dain, not Thorin) and it’s his son, Bolg, who leads the Goblin army at the end of the novel. But that may be too complicated for movie-going audiences to follow, so I’m OK with streamlining it. I interpret the character and appearance of the Great Goblin as an homage to the character and appearance of same in the Rankin/Bass animated version from 1977. Now, if only Jackson could have shoehorned the “Down, down to Goblin Town” song into that scene. The riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum is terrific. Not much more to say, except that it captures what happens in the book perfectly. There’s a scene when the Dwarves have escaped from Goblin Town and Bilbo has caught up with them (having eluded Gollum). Thorin asks Bilbo why he came back since he has a home to return to and no reason to continue on with the quest, and Bilbo says (I paraphrase): “I have a home where – indeed – I should be; but you don’t, and I would be a poor Hobbit if I didn’t help you recover yours.” It’s not from the book but it’s certainly Tolkien, and whichever scriptwriter is responsible for it deserves kudos.Amongthe bad points: Radagast. This was probably the biggest mistake of the entire film – at least as far as characterizations go. He’s not made up out of whole cloth. Radagast does make a brief appearance in Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings as the unwitting messenger of Saruman to Gandalf. Even in that fleeting encounter, however, the reader can see that this is a real person with real wisdom. In Jackson’s hands, he becomes a cartoonish caricature covered in bird shit. It’s similar to what he did to Denethor’s character in LotR, who was so much more believable and complex in Tolkien’s hands. Elves. Elves are not metrosexual vegetarians. Somehow, in the years since Tolkien wrote, vulgar fandom, most role-playing games and now Jackson have turned the Professor’s complex and unique creatures into sexless, tee-totaling, arrogant, obnoxious jerks. Elves, like Men and Dwarves, are not just creatures of spirit but of flesh and they are capable of all the desires and evils the latter two races exhibit. In The Silmarillion they’re rapists (Eöl/Aredhel), attempted rapists (Celegorm/Luthien), murderers (the sons of Fëanor), and – yes – even hunters (Beleg Strongbow), i.e., people who kill animals for food. And in Tolkien’s Hobbit, Bilbo manages to free the Dwarves from the Wood-elf king’s dungeons because the wardens get drunk! Here and in LotR, Jackson mischaracterizes them shamefully. The fight scenes. This may be a paradox, but the fight scenes needed to be more realistic. It was better in LotR, but every fight in this movie lasts too long and is so over the top as to descend into the realms of the cartoon or the wuxia flick. In the latter genres, the viewer expects to see outrageous feats of derring-do and utterly unbelievable fighting but that style just doesn’t work in this genre. It’s a tired cliché, but in this case “less is more.”There’vebeen discussions on the internets about the “padding” Jackson has resorted to,to make a three-film epic. Based on this first film, I found the extras and thebackground info reasonable. It didn’t detract from the story too much, and it’sprobably necessary to make sure non-Tolkien geeks can follow what’s going on. Ireserve final judgment until I see what Jackson does with the rest of theseries.So, Iimagine that – in the end – my relationship to Jackson’s Hobbit will mirror that of my relationship with his Lord of the Rings – A love/hatesituation. There’s so much Jackson can get right in translating Tolkien to thescreen but – oh, boy – when he gets it wrong (which he does often enough), hereally gets it wrong.
12/22/2012 2:46:38 AM
Three Cheers for the Professional Burglar! (Bilbo or Sophie both deserve three cheers)
12/16/2012 11:42:22 PM
I wouldn't say it's the best film of this year but this was probably my favourite of the LOTR film so far and I'm seriously looking forward to the next film. My biggest complaint is that they set up that there is a dragon in this film and the villain we get was kinda lame in comparison (still an interesting character though) and those birds were a massive deus ex machina.Loved the Dwarfs my favourite being the one played by James Nesbitt and Martin Freeman is the perfect everyman character. Apart from Gandalf, Bilbo and Gollum the previous LOTR's characters felt a bit tacked on and I didn't think they need to be in it.
12/17/2012 7:40:15 AM
They WERE tacked on. Elrond was the only one of them that was in the book, and only very, very briefly. The only thing that happened at Rivendell in the book was the reading of the moon runes. And the eagles were done exactly as they were in the text (except that they didn't talk here), and were no less deus ex machina then the one who rescued Gandalf from Orthanc. The book didn't even have the butterfly setup, the eagles just showed up on their own because they don't like orcs. There would have been no good way to include Smaug in even a two-parter except by showing him in the backstory (he's only in maybe two chapters), while the movie gives you a good five minutes of him destroying Erebor. The books didn't even have an Azog figure, all baddies but the Goblin King were nameless and indistinguishable. So as far as adaptations go, I think they did a decent job here.
12/17/2012 9:12:18 AM
Well Dragon.. think of it this way, they are building the thing up on purpose, this movie was all-ready massive and awe-striking as it was.. so.. what do you do to top that in the sequal and make people come back?So yeah, we didn't see the dragon cause they were saving it, which was a wise decision.. yeah.. yeah it still is my favourite movie. Maybe it's because this is just my genre and my kind of movie I god dooped into thinking it was so darn great, I really think it was. And yeah they added stuff, it's up to the individual if they liked seeing Radagast running around, and if they liked the more immediate threat of the white orch.. i liked them, and I liked what they brought to he movie so yeah. It's a very free adaptation but I like the things they added, it has an oppertunity to show more middle-earth, to be bigger, to explore the world some more, and it seizes it! Some likes that, some don't, I like it.
12/17/2012 10:32:33 AM
"So yeah, we didn't see the dragon cause they were saving it, which was a wise decision.. yeah.. yeah it still is my favourite movie."Of the series, or just of the year? Have you been mulling it over?
12/17/2012 11:09:09 AM
of the year, not the series ;) And I did love "The Avengers." "paranorman." "rise of the Guardians." ext as well, so it hasn't been a year in total waste. Mulling over? what does that mean?
12/17/2012 11:32:12 AM
It just means to think about something for a while. You said earlier that you didn't know which movie was your favorite, but now it sounded like maybe you had made up your mind.
12/17/2012 12:32:46 PM
That's the kind of decision I can safely say now that.. I am not ever going to make. I view all three lord of the rings movies as one entity, they only work together and only work because of each other, they are the same, just three different chapters of the same book, there-fore I wont pick. The Hobbit is a dance of triumph over their prior success and a chance to explore middle-earth even further, which they do, ones again it's so damn tightly connected with Lord of the rings. Well, lord of the rings cons; it's the bigger more serious story, lets go fight a dragon palls in comparisonIt's the more collected story! The lord of the rings movies doesn't stray. The hobbit how-ever.. does.. it's "Lets go on adventure! okay now there's trolls, now we just happen to find these treasures in this old cave.. now elfs.. now goblins.. now giant mountain thingies.." it doesn't have a as collected story so it strays, but well cons. The company of the dwarves is a fun enjoyable company! And we get to see more "fun wonder." of middle-earth. As I said, I like Bilbo better than Frodo, Frodo is kind of a... goodie good, a character without any real flaws. While Bilbo is a person whom has been raised up to be prim and prober, he is not a bad person, he has just been raised to keep appearance of such a comfortable lifes and doesn't know better, yet part of him obviously longs to break loose and see more, only as he get out there, his prim upbringing still holds him back and he needs to learn how to let go of all he was used to to succeed, and still, in spite of this prim upbringing, he is still a good compassionate person, whom in reality is even quite humble, it's just no obvious at first. On top of that.. Frodo never gets to stand so much up for himself or do things, in the beginning he gets pushed around, saved by other people, and by the last movie.. erm.. Sam saves him, Sam does to be stronger than Frodo. True, while these struggles are physical ones, Frodos real struggle is on a mental plane, the plane of the heart and his compassion, but still.. we could have used just a little more of him being active, at least a bit in the first movie, but nope... Merry and Pippin gets to save Frodo, Aragorn gets to save Frodo, Arven gets to save Frodo, the armor Bilbo gave him gets to safe Frodo, Gandalf gets to safe Frodo, all within the first movie, never does Frodo get to safe himself.... While Bilbo.. Bilbo very daringly and all alone sneaks behind the big trolls to save the horses, we see him use his wits to delay the trolls with talk, we see him escape the goblins by simply bowing down and use his wit, we see him best Gollum on own accord and then also see him show mercy... (to take a guess the ring urged him to kill Gollum, but he actually defied the ring there.) and at last... he bloody body attacked a great big orc and a wolf. Is he a warrior of best degree saving the day? no.. he is a hobbit. But man, is he active in this movie, man does he get to do stuff that is all him, and not just other people saving him. Bilbo, you're tha man.... Hobbit.. he is tha hobbit!
12/17/2012 1:40:11 PM
Frodo was never that great of a character in my opinion all he seemed to do was wait for someone to save him. Sam was the much more likable character who's storyarch is a lot more interesting.
12/17/2012 1:53:00 PM
As I said, Frodo never gets to stand up for himself, and that can become a problem. And yes, yes I liked Sam better to! Sam was so gosh darn loyal, stood up for himself, stood up for Frodo, did things.. was never as much as ones needed saving, had a great story arch. "Samwise the great!"The more humble, poorer gardener whom didn't view himself as more than "he is my master Frodo and I am going to help him.. master Frodo." He even had more flaws as a person than Frodo, while Frodo was so busy being. "See, compassionate, I am giving Gollum a chance!"Sams reservations towards Gollum were some-what more human and also interesting, it created an interesting dynamic.. huh actually, it doesn't even do Frodo a lot of favours when he starts litterately yelling. "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!" at Sam... whom has been loyal as hell, never arrogant and even had a good point for all of this time Frodo didn't listen to, and when he did he just answered. "Njah, you don't understand Same." damn... Frodo acted like an ass there..I think if just we had had a moment, just one, where Frodo gets to do some-thing in the physical world other than run away just.. Some-thing! let Frodo safe some-body instead of having them safe him all the time.. Gollum bloody safes his life because he is dumb enough to trip into the swamp.. why not have Sam fall and Frodo safe him? Just SOME-THING!Perhaps it would have been equaled out more if he got do to do some-thing, but he didn't, and that's a shame. I guess the one big redeeming factor about Frodo is supposed to be his compassion, and the fact that he did show mercy towards gollum, which brings the story to a final close and good ending (out of luck! gollum tried to kill you before you even got that far) and beside, by that account, Bilbo did that to! so you both get the same point for that one. It's a little funny to me how Bilbo complains more and acts more like a rich ditch, but in actuality physically does more.. so well yeah.. and we all-ready know that Bilbo is going to face-down a bloody dragon later on so.. Bilbo wins for best main character..
12/16/2012 7:35:38 PM
Have come pretty late to the party here but I don't regret it. That was an amazing experience to see that film in 3D, I still feel the thrush flying around me (Goodnight everybody!) I don't know about you but the first time you saw Freeman as Bilbo and speak his lines had me beaming. Just a great awkward trademark of his that makes his comedic skills all the more potent. James Nesbitt was great to me as Bofur too (I know it's odd to single out one of the dwarves especially one who didn't have many memorable moments except at Bilbo's house and in the orc cave but he's just such a funny and likeable actor to me) and Gollum was great too. His scene with Bilbo was what you mentioned as well as being funny, some of the biggest laughs in our screening came from some of his lines. I did think that some of the 3D did make some of the effects a bit too artifical and dated by today's standards but other than that, it was a blast to see. A good way to finish off the worl...I mean year!
12/16/2012 8:10:59 PM
NO! not the end of the world! I mean.. I need to see the next one! The next hobbit movie I mean, and and.. more episode of Teenage mutant ninja turtles! what'll happen next with Baxster Stockman and leatherhead and when are we going to see Shredder face Splinter? So many things un-answered! AND THE NEXT DOCTOR WHO COMPANION! aren't I going to see her? or the flesh eating snowmen???? Or Sherlock coming back to life scaring the crap out of John? I need to see it! And the next Iron man movie! can't die without that, not to forget Pacific Rim, the next Guilmoro Del-toro movie coming out this year! And the new Superman movie! I need to have a strong opinion on it, and hate it or love it, so I can go over it for hours on my face-book page why that is!And the next young justice episode! how will Miss martian react to knowing the truth! and in Merlin, are Arthur going to finally fucking find out that Merlin has magic? World going under now? NOOOOOO!seriously though, glad you enjoyed the movie, I sure did X)
12/22/2012 4:18:35 AM
ROFL[okay more sober now] Also Static is coming to Young Justice, finally!and where's Kyle Rayner? he should join the team too :), also will we get to see Kid Devil, Bombshell etc?I really liked YJ season 1 (even though I still think it stupid that they gave Robin Tim Drake personality etc and want to keep insisting he's Dick Grayson; should've just let him be Tim, we like Tim too ya know :) [related to that I really wish they'd just made kid Zatanna be Traci 13 instead, and we could've had her mother in Zatarra's place throughout, not that I disliked what they did I just want to see Traci in an animated show :)]). I...I have A LOT of problems with Season 2; I completely understand and sympathize that after Spectacular Spider-Man the show creators are worried they may not get another season and so they want to hurry up and tell the story of 5yrs later.I still think it's a very good show overall, but there are some things they skipped over that really should've been shown, not told :([SPOILERS: the whole Miss Martian Superboy thing is so frustrating, both because they're relationship was one of the highlights of Season 1 and because the whole "You're going down a dark path I cannot follow" shtick always smacks to me of laziness on the character's part, esp in a romantic relationship. If you don't like what the person you care about so much is doing and they aren't the one trying to break-up with you (and you still love them yourself), then it's pretty much your duty to keep on them and indeed to go with them (not do evil yourself, but to keep pushing them back to what you see as the right path) as written even w/saying that he tried to get her to stop, it still sounds like he just gave up. It seems that we'll see them work things out by season's end, but still that frustrates me.And it's hard to rectify this darker Miss Martian with the happy cutesy one we saw last season, so again if they fleshed their (M'gann and Conner's) arc out more I might've bought it.Also they fridged Tula, wtf, I was hoping that'd be revealed as part of the set-up for Aqualad going "evil" and that really her and Garth were in hiding to help the turn of Aqualad seem believable; but no apparently this cartoon show actually fridged a girl between seasons - THIS is my biggest frustration with Season 2 and the jump)Although, I'm glad we have Lian Harper there in the show and I'd like to see more of her and her parents, even though the whole clone thing is just an excuse to have cyborg-ed armed Arsenal (which I could do w/o), at least it doesn't look like they plan on killing off Lian.Also I'm glad Beetle and Cassie (Wondergirl) are on the team, but I wish Beetle acted a bit more like he did in his original comic run or on BTBATB and I would like to see Donna Troy be there too. There are just a lot of things with it that make Season 2 jump seem to compound with the stupid New52 stuff and all those character/roster revamps, and that's sad.]Sorry, that rant went on far longer than I thought it would, I do still like the show, those issues just loom big for me when I watch it. And if not for those issues I might rank the show up with the Teen Titans cartoon, which I loved more than even Justice League :)
12/15/2012 5:50:21 AM
OK, just came back from seeing it, so here's some general thoughts:-If it weren't for The Avengers, Gandalf would be the best action hero of the year.-If Middle-Earth were a real place, I would definitely hang out with the dwarves-When the fuck is Andy Serkis going to get the credit he rightfully deserves? And by that, I mean when are the award people going to bite the bullet and give this man an award?-I "get" the reasons for why this film isn't doing so hot with critics in general, but honestly, the things that can be seen as problems (too long, too much CGI, extended action scenes, scenes that "feel like a video game", dwarves are kind of indistinguishible, etc.) I don't mind them. I believe that Wingnut's work with CGI is, and has been, superb.-You know the film has done its job well when you get to the end and you're thinking "wow, it's been three hours already?"-The film starts pretty slow, but once we finally start the adventure, the whole thing is a blast.-I cheered and shed tears for this movie. I don't think I've had a positive reaction at such a level as when I was watching this movie to anything in a very long time.
12/15/2012 7:43:26 AM
yeah, I can see where the argue "It's slow." comes from.. but I did not mind, I liked how the movie take its time to do this and really emerge itself with the universe. hell yeah, Hobbits and Dwarves, that's the two places I would go.. elfs are freaking boring. I don't know mate.. I don't know. Yeah and again.. I admit, it did nothing for the plot two have two mountain giants having an epic fight-scene.. why was it there? OTHER THAN LOOKING BLOODY COOL????? when else would we be allowed to see things like that? I liked the exstended fight scenes and set-pieces, I like the chase through goblin mountain, I liked all of that, so no, I do not wish they had chanced it or cut it down. This is an action adventure! I don't what else people had exspected, an art film? Also come-on.. the beginning is to slow with no exciting things happening and the ending has to much excitement??? make up your bloody minds. yup, agree. "Over all-ready? daaw, but I wanna see more! wait a second.. I am going to see more.. SWEET!" I just adressed that. Oh yeah, the movie had me as a person, involved, on more than a objective plan, that means to me, that that is a damn great movie! Could I point to flaws in it and make fun of it? .. probably yeah, when I have it on DVD and see through it more times but.. even the flaws in my eyes aren't really flaws but stuff I happen to enjoy.And no, of cause this isn't the lord of the rings, the Lord of the rings is "The end of the world as every-body in that univers knows it!" while the hobbit is. "We are going on a quest to see a dragon!" Last one is cool, but palls in comparison, I get it.. but well, the movie is so damn self indulgent, celebrates itself and its history so much, and is so much fun to watch, I love it.
12/15/2012 9:16:42 AM
While I was staring in shock at the sheer unnecessity of the rock giant smackdown, I found myself wondering: How do the rock giants possibly survive when bits of broken rock fall off of them with every punch, even the ones they throw? What's the use in fighting if you couldn't possibly do it without killing yourself? Do they re-grow rock like we re-grow skin? How does that work? Do they eat rock, and the minerals are turned into skin? They'd need a circulatory system for that. How do they move? Do they have muscles and nerves? You kinda need those to move. If they do have nerves, why didn't they notice the people climbing on them? Are they so obtuse that they'd fight and kill each other, but not mind people crawling on them, and maybe even digging into them with picks? Were they animated by magic, and just do stuff because? Who created them? Are they fighting all the time, or just by sheer co-incidence were they only fighting when Thorin's company showed up? How come they're so mythical? Surely, at their size, ANYONE could see them from hundreds of miles away.(Yes, I'm aware this is nerd ranting, but you can't have geek gushing without it.)It was the most gratutious of many gratuitous CGI scenes, adding nothing at all to the story other than (perhaps literally) mindless spectacle. It felt like something that should have been cut early as being a big waste of time and money. Just have big (but not colossal) humanoids throwing rocks because they're bored. Mythology is full of stuff like that, but it has to make sense on at least some level. The giants went WAY too far, they reeked of filler and spectacle for spectacle's sake. It took so long and was so senseless that it took me right out of the movie. I don't know how they made it past the first draft, unless Jackson and company just had no concept of boundaries. There are limits to even fantasy: either keep things somewhat plausible so the audience can easily grasp it, or at least explain the more outlandish elements. The giants came out of nowhere, served no purpose, and felt like products of the ramblings of an imaginative kindergartener.I still liked the movie overall, but yeesh, it got pretty damn silly sometimes.EDIT: Final sentences removed. I don't think they're phrased very well. Please disregard if you did read them.
12/15/2012 10:07:41 AM
It's a valid argument, there are NO reason in hell why the rock giants are even there, no reason. It doesn't add to the plot, it's never brought up again, it was not even set-up, and must have cost like a ton of money. The only plausible explanation could be is that it adds to the idea that this is a huge dangerous world where dangerous magical things happen. But well.. we all-ready had the massive spiders attacking Radagast, the orcs presented as an more immediate threat, the looming threat of a necromancer and the orcs were even set-up as to why they chase the dwarves, there's an explanation. So no, Rock giants.. no bloody sense why they were there, other than it looked cool! but I also think you are miss-judging how long it took, it was no more than three to five minutes tops of the movie, it's just that that scene was so massive and impressive that it felt bigger, and well... it was one of those "3-D rollercoaster moments." showing off the spectacular new effects and just show-casing what the movie can do. I think I just explained why the scene was there.... and I admit I am usual on the boat of. "Action scenes has to have a story reason and matter to the damn plot!" ... hehe.. every rule has an exception I guess.. my yeah, if I should have chosen one scene for the movie to cut.. that would be it. Also.. it's magic.And here's probably also why it made more sense to me than you US people.. mountains whom are secretly giants or.. a sort of troll as we like to call it here. Is a very common thing in Scandinavian/Norse mythology and is an idea I grew up with accepting. See, J.R.R. Tolkien actually was deeply inspired from Norse Mythology and took many things directly from it, his creatures, his names for them, their functions ext. That whole thing abou trolls turning to stone? NORSE MYTHOLOGY! And here's how it connects in our real mythology, it's when a troll dies, no matter how it does it, if its get killed or dies of old age, it turns to stone. Now, a troll never ever stops growing, the older it is, the bigger it becomes.. and the more lazy it becomes, a thousand year old troll will barely move, in fact it will sleep for hundred years at a time, and will be huge as a mountain.. in fact most people will mistake a sleeping old troll for a mountain and it is a danger factor that any mountain my be a sleeping troll, and you do not want to wake that up! that's dangerous!Yet, people mistake sleeping trolls for mountains and does so all the time in old Norse mythology tales (I also belive that is what happened here, the dwarves woke up the giants and the giants became grumpy about it. about having been woken from sleeping a couple of hundred years, which is why no one believed the existed) And then, when the giant, thousand year old troll finally dies of old age.. it turns to stone and it DOES become the mountain! It's also a mythology beautiful carried over in the critically acclaimed Norwegian movie "Troll hunter." which is a fun movie to me, because in foreign peoples eye they say. "Oh my god, what new imaginary designs!" and I as a Scandinavian says. "THAT'S WHAT A TROLL IS SUPPOSED TO BLOODY LOOK LIKE!" that's how I grew up with them!And that's all I could think about when I saw that sequence, to finally see that sort of creature on the big screen, I was in a happy place inside. Us Scandinavian countries would never have had the budget to do it ourselves. And btw.. people whom has been asking me to do a Norse mythology video.. remember how I said I might do that in connection to Thor.. not going to happen because here's why. Thor bears clear marks of being written by a man whom merely heard of Norse mythology but never bothered to actually read any of that, and just did what the hell he wanted, so NOTHING has any-thing to do with actual Norse mythology in his work. while Tolkiens work... bear clear marks of being written by a man whom LOVED norse mythology and studied it endlessly, incorporated it into his own work and based his work around it and his intimate knowledge of the mythology. So yes, that's going to happen! a video about Tolkiens many tributes to Norse mythology, it just makes way more sense. And yep, Lord of the rings, way closer to norse mythology than Thor is.. WAY closer.
12/15/2012 10:55:44 AM
(The following continues the nerd-rant and contains spoilers)"It's a valid argument, there are NO reason in hell why the rock giants are even there, no reason. It doesn't add to the plot, it's never brought up again, it was not even set-up, and must have cost like a ton of money. The only plausible explanation could be is that it adds to the idea that this is a huge dangerous world where dangerous magical things happen.[...]I also think you are miss-judging how long it took, it was no more than three to five minutes tops of the movie, it's just that that scene was so massive and impressive that it felt bigger, and well... it was one of those "3-D rollercoaster moments." showing off the spectacular new effects and just show-casing what the movie can do."I don't disagree with you at all here, but I think it's a VERY important flaw in the film, not just with the final product, but the very process of its making, one that bodes poorly for the next two films (especially the third one, which will have to be mostly new material) and even embodies a lot of the flaws of Hollywood filmmaking in general. And I'm saddened that Jackson didn't take the high road and avoid all this waste. The giants could have been handled a lot better, being less expensive, closer to the novel, AND more approachable for general audiences, IF they were to be included at all (and I think they shouldn't have been). That it wasn't handled better makes me feel less of Jackson as a filmmaker, I hate to say. There's a reason deleted scenes exist: because including them would make the film worse. I have a feeling there were no deleted scenes in this movie whatsoever. It's like sticking with the first draft of a story; no good writer should ever do that.The giants were only mentioned in passing in the book, didn't do anything remotely important to the story, either the book or movie, would be easier for general audiences to understand if they were more traditional-looking (all without crossing the Tolkien purists), cost money to include, and made an already long film longer. So why were they even in there? Sure, it might have been fun to watch them fight (though there's no depth or meaning to the fight, just more spectacle in a movie already filled to the brim), but that can't be the only consideration when making a movie. If Jackson really cared about either A) Tolkien purists, or B) casual moviegoers, he should have put either faithfulness or pacing ahead of yet another special effects display. That he chose to do neither suggests some real sloppiness on his part, like EVERY idea he or the other writers came up with was greenlit, whether or not it made sense or contributed anything meaningful to the story, AND left in the final cut. The money's there, the film'll be a hit no matter what, so who really cares, just throw it all in because we can."But well.. we all-ready had the massive spiders attacking Radagast, the orcs presented as an more immediate threat, the looming threat of a necromancer and the orcs were even set-up as to why they chase the dwarves, there's an explanation."Exactly. The spiders are there to flesh out Radigast's scenes a bit (unnecessary, but an understandable inclusion, as they're a physical manifestation of the corruption of Mirkwood for those in the audience who don't know what's coming and don't know why they should care about this forest, other than the koot widdo baby hedgehog) and to set up the audience for their big appearance in the second movie. The Necromancer's appearance also sets up the audience for new scenes in the next two movies, probably with Gandalf running around down there while Thorin's band is occupied in Mirkwood, and to tie the events of the story in with LotR through the Necromancer/Sauron connection. Both are examples of good foreshadowing, and of how Jackson was able to expand some parts of the story very well. That's padding done right. The orcs are the typical ugly humanoid enemy-types found in all world mythology; they don't need explanation, and they're already big parts of the books and movies, so of course they're in there as the primary antagonists. Even wargs are easy enough to understand, just big wolves that give the heroes something even scarier to fight against, especially since the orcs and goblins die by the hundreds, and thus are probably not interesting enough to handle the job by themselves.But the giants? Lazy, wasteful, potentially confusing, unnecessary, and I suspect, ultimately detrimental to the film.
12/15/2012 11:35:41 AM
Oh hello, that was a big edit. :)I'm Swedish and Norwegian by ancestry, and third-generation American. I grew up with books on Norse mythology (even if it contradicted other parts of my upbringing, very strangely....), so I have a certain familiarity with what you're talking about. Though not quite to the depth that you just ranted on. Very nice, BTW, you work that detail! :DNow I didn't draw any connection between the book or the film's rock giants and trolls. I took the trolls as being trolls and giants being giants, jotuns though they both are, since even the books didn't make that big of a deal about them. I like your explanation for them, and I can now really understand why you didn't mind that scene at all, but I can't say that it changes my opinion of how the scene plays out in the movie, as I can't imagine many viewers are going to know what you know about their role in the story. I'm surprised that, in a movie as long as this one, they would choose not to include even a brief explanation for what happened if they so wanted to include a scene where two mountain-sized giants are suddenly fighting each other. Or maybe I'm just bitter than Jackson may have slipped something in that went over my head :p. I noticed that they slipped a very brief mention of the trolls wanting to eat the dwarves before the dawn turns them to stone, but it went by so quickly, was buried in so much other silly dialogue that I might have missed it had I not already read the book and knew that was going to happen. I wonder how many people would have even picked up on that and thus not felt the troll's comeuppance went unexplained.I think I can now be more sympathetic to the giants' scene, or at least that I can look back on it a bit less critically. I still think it was handled poorly and should have been saved for the Extended Edition (if there is such a thing), but thanks for providing the much-needed context.
12/15/2012 12:26:11 PM
yeah... yeah sorry, you got to rant on quit a bit there, it just took some time for me before I found the words to decribe how I felt about them and why I liked them. Well, glad if I could make you look a little less critically at them, and I do acknowledge why they could be considered a problem, as it just happens though, I genuinly enjoyed them and went. "Oh hell yeah!" when they come, and I cannot deny my genuine response to them X)
12/15/2012 12:59:14 PM
One last thing: I couldn't pick up from your review if you liked this movie better than the others. How would you rank them so far? For me: FotR, TT (very, very close, though), UJ, RotK.
12/15/2012 1:27:34 PM
I don't know if I like it better than the others, again it's sort of like setting. "The entire world as we know it is going to end." against. "Lets go fight a dragon!" Both are pretty cool, but one palls in the comparison to the other. There is no topping lord of the rings in sheer grandour and epicness. It's never going to happen again. But on the other hand, i've read the Hobbit more times than the lord of the rings, cause it's the cosier, funnier lighter book, which i some-thing I enjoy kicking back to. There's things in this movie I think is an improvement, like.. our main character, and it's more fun, there's more laughs.. still the scale is smaller, and palls in comparison to what came before, which is a definit handicap.It's just like comparing apples with oranges.. I can't. I love both of them, they are both great.
12/22/2012 3:00:35 AM
Yay! Troll Hunter :) I'm glad I listened to MovieBob and saw that and btw I was one of those who saw the Trolls and just thought: yep, good job capturing the old Norwegian folk tale look for those.I honestly can't understand how so many misunderstood that. Even just going to the Norway gift shop in Disney World's Epcot, one should be able to get that.[on an extremely tangential note Norway is my favorite stop in Epcot for a quick bite; love the pastries and Sandwiches (I'm sure they pale in comparison to the real thing though Sophie), I don't know why putting apples into a cooked ham and cheese sandwich works so well, just that I love eating it]
12/14/2012 9:21:05 AM
I think I like Sofie's review better than the film!Still good, though. :-)
12/14/2012 9:42:28 AM
have you even seen the film yet?
12/14/2012 9:46:20 AM
12/14/2012 9:52:07 AM
aheach their own opinion...
12/14/2012 10:17:32 AM
Yikes! Did you do a midnight screening? I figured you'd be too "cool" to indulge in such populist trash. :p
12/14/2012 10:28:27 AM
Well, watching movies is kind of my job. ;-)
12/14/2012 10:56:55 AM
watching them and have weird opinions of them....
12/14/2012 7:34:46 AM
Four men wanting to eat Sofie out hmmm:). Nice review. I kind of want to see in theaters but that going to be 3 1/2 hours at the theater. Oh well ,there is a good chance that I'm still going to see it.
12/14/2012 7:57:38 AM
not three and a half hours.. just three.. but doesn't feel it at all, I was dissapointed when it was over. "What all-ready? damn! can't wait for the next one :D" And HEY! two of those orcs were women! and my good friends!
12/14/2012 4:45:57 AM
Yes, but how does it compare (in story quality and visual and technical aspects) to Leonard Nimoy's "Ballad of Bilbo Baggins" video?Some of the other early reviewers I've seen had problems with the technical innovations, finding them distracting. You didn't seem to have a problem, though. Maybe some people's eyes and brains just process this new technology differently, and you happen to fall into the happy group whose eyes and brains enjoy this newest 3D effect? Guess I need to check it out in the theater and hope for the best. I read "The Hobbit" years ago, but have never read the Silmarillion, am I likely to get lost in the added parts or are they well-integrated enough that it doesn't matter? (My view is that any move adaptation should be understandable by itself, without having read the book. This is why David Lynch's "Dune" fails (well, it's one of several dozen reasons) while Jackson's LoTR is a success.) Thanks for the review, and I hope you understand how lucky you are to have seen this ahead of most of the rest of the world.
12/14/2012 5:55:13 AM
I did feel it a bit in the beginning.. and I even mentioned in this video that.. some-times it was so over-whelming that I genuinly felt slightly air-sick, exactly like when you sit in a roller-coaster. I liked that effect how-ever, I liked that tingling in my stomach and that scared sensation of flying over a city.. it has never felt more real, and that's also why it can leave you kind of air sick.. my reaction was. "WOW!...eagle.. wow.. argh!.. hah that was fun!" Well, this movie adds things.. and I know a lot of people will hate it, but I do find most of the adding are improvements, Bilbo is such a well-rounded character in this. Thorin is such a well-rounded character and they also really put an efford into making this and LoftR connect as good as possible. The looming threat of the rising Sauron is present, some-thing that wasn't in the book, we get hints to the future, and a new villain was added, the white orc as a more immediate threat, we get to meet Radagast the Brown another wizard.. which I am sure is a character a lot of people will complain about, but dammit, I liked him! Sylvester McCoy on mushrooms! I still don't know what the hell they are going to do about the third movie, but yes.. yes this needed to be at least two movies!
12/14/2012 2:59:02 AM
If I assume Sylvester McCoy is appearing as the Doctor in disguise, does the movie work?
12/14/2012 5:56:23 AM
The doctor is on mushrooms? .... that does explain things.I think the best explanation is that the doctor just crash-landed on middle-earth, was stuck there, and settled in the forest with his mushrooms.
12/13/2012 7:57:53 PM
Hey! I'm the one who says, "Aloha," around here!
12/13/2012 8:09:08 PM
When did I say Aloha in this review?
12/13/2012 9:09:27 PM
It was the first word out of your mouth...
12/13/2012 9:25:50 PM
I don't believe it is.. I just think's it's "ARGH-Hallo! I am here by the Hobbit premiere." you must excuse me if I didn't speak that clearly, I was being eaten by orgs
12/13/2012 7:51:08 PM
Oh, Lord, I'm such a dork but my inner Tolkien pedant has to point out that we do meet Radagast in LoTR - not the movie but the book. Gandalf recounts a meeting with him at the Council of Elrond. And the Necromancer IS Sauron.And I've read The Silmarillion and I don't remember a "white orc"? Don't spoil anything about the movie but in which part of the book does he make an appearance?Nitpicking aside, your review gives me heart. My relationship with Jackson's LoTR is bittersweet. There are parts he got SO right, and parts he got SO wrong, and I was nervous about what he might do to The Hobbit. But I respect your opinion (backhanded compliment about your other reviews :-) and I can look forward to seeing it with more hope.One more point - While I don't disagree with you about injecting humor into LoTR, IMO, Jackson missed more than he hit with his attempts. It sounds from your review that he may have had better fortune with The Hobbit.
12/13/2012 8:08:56 PM
Well, me and my palls laughed a lot.. and went. "OH HELL YES!" .. a lot of times. Then again we are all Larpers (life action role game players.) so our humour is.. well special. And European humour has been known to be quite different from American humour, I find the Lord of the rings quite funny and quite good at hitting the mark actually. I know the one biggest complaint is that they have made Gimli comic relief and they feel like it undermines his character. To which I can only say.. He is a damn dwarf, looks like it, behaves like it, is it. He is tha dwarf! and if there was some-thing I could have wished for it would have been that they should have made Legolas a bit more of an arrogant ass so he could have more of a character (lets face it, his biggest function now is that all the girls wants to brush his hair.) and him and Gimli could have more dynamic interactions where both gets served ones in a while and had that whole thing, I kind of missed from the books, where they first despise each other but then end up best of friends, I would have liked that to be a bit more apparent. It's been years since I read silmarillion, and even then it was a hard read for me, I admit it -_-;Also I read it Danish, so it's quite possible name changes and details slipped me by or were simply lost in translation :/ He doesn't meet Radagast at the council of Eldron, he meets with him out in the forest, and the inspiration for Radagasts behaviour and appearance, clearly taken from Silmiarilion. I actually found it quite nice they took the time to explain the wizards in this movie! didn't take them more than ten seconds, but they did, this movie really explore the world further and exspands on it, it's beautiful. Well, white orc.. just.. watch the movie and tell me it wasn't worth it for the ending! that thing Bilbo gets to do.. just.. tell me it wasn't worth it, I dare you ;) I also think its well worth remembering, this is supposed to be an adventure and action movie. That is the two biggest goals of this movie.. and I think it succeeds damn well at those two aspects, it takes a bit before the action gets started, but when it does.. phew it is big things!
12/13/2012 8:16:35 PM
Forgive my inelegant phrasing about Radagast :-)And you're absolutely right about the Legolas/Gimli dynamic.As I wrote, I've come to trust your opinion about movies so I'm going in with a positive attitude ;-)
12/13/2012 8:35:20 PM
That's actually my own personal biggest complaint about the Lord of the Rings movies... the elfs.. the elfs are boring. I like there is a scene in this movie where the dwarfs sits by the elfs table and is served salad to which they go. "Wtf is this? green stuff? I don't eat no green stuff!" and then of cause gets highly annoyed by dumb elf flutes and harps that keeps playing doing their meal. yeah you go dwarfs! that's exactly what I feel about the Peter Jackson elfs, they are to high and mighty.. perfect forest wise creatures what-ever. Honestly, the dwarfs in comparison are FUN! These elfs.. It's nice for small girls I suppose, they can all fantasies about brushing legolas's hair and wear long flowy elf dresses which pretty much makes up for being a princess dress, but come on. But even that being said, they are impressive to look at, those are some nicy flowy elf dresses, and they do look like a culture.. boring culture, but a culture. I would have liked them to have just some sort of flaw like.. I don't know, arrogance.. like the books. They are just to damn perfect -_-; There's even hints in the movies, left-overs from the book. "I don't want help from the elfs! they never help!" Why does people keep saying that? because elfs are arrogant ass-holes that's why.. none of the movies just seems to realise this. Well, I hope I havn't compleately smashed your opinion as you suddenly go into the movie and go out again saying. "hey! what a load of bull-shit! dumb movie!" .... I still love it, I am going to watch it again next sunday! on my birthday! :D
12/13/2012 8:25:13 PM
"I know the one biggest complaint is that they have made Gimli comic relief and they feel like it undermines his character. To which I can only say.. He is a damn dwarf, looks like it, behaves like it, is it."It's lowbrow humor, and it robbed Gimli of his dignity by making him the butt of every joke, and even mocking him for his height.Think of it this way: Gandalf is an old man. Old people have flatulence problems. Should Gandalf have had flatulence problems in the movie? Suuuuure woulda been funny, I betcha. Crowd woulda loved it. Jackson missed a great opportunity to lighten the movie up another notch. Because laughing at old people is fun, and that's all Gandalf is, right?"Well, white orc.. just.. watch the movie and tell me it wasn't worth it for the ending! that thing Bilbo gets to do.. just.. tell me it wasn't worth it, I dare you ;)"Please tell me he doesn't hit the orc in the balls. I don't mind if you spoil this one thing IF (and only if) that's what Jackson actually had him do. I would have a right to know.
12/13/2012 8:49:49 PM
well.. you are going to love Radagast then (says I in a very sarcastic tone of voice.) And btw, the movies does take a few jabs as Gandalf ones in a while.. in the small amount of time he is Gandalf the gray, (couldn't figure the pass-word to Moria and then later had forget the way in the mountain.) ones he becomes Gandalf the white, that is all out. Now as we spend longer time with gandalf the grey, he gets to take some more jabs from time to time. and no.. no he doesn't.. the movie does actually have to much dignity for that.. you want a spoiler?SPOILER! DO NOT READ IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW! .........White orc is just this freaking huge massive beast, sitting on top of an even huger massive wolf, he is just about to decapitate thorin with his sword.. seconds away from it, no one is around, the rest of the dwarves are captured in a tree threatening to fall over a cliff-side. And then tinny tiny Bilbo throws himselfs at the orc, this massively sat up, leader and legend among orcs, and saves Thorin.. just.. wauw Bilbo, he bloody body attacked that sucker and then sticks his sword at him (Which looks like a toothe pick compared to the orc, he can't even hold the sword probably), and no one believed in him up until that point, it looks amazing. It looks amazing exactly because Bilbo is so tiny, obviously have no chance in hell, and that orc is so big.. it's beautiful.
12/15/2012 4:42:18 AM
MORE SPOILERSI don't see the point of putting the white orc/Azog in there at all. I figured he was going to be the "Final Boss", to give Bilbo and Thorin something to kill at the climax, so that it doesn't just end with the heroes being plucked out of the trees, running away with the nameless enemy still alive. I'm certain he'll be back for the Battle of Five Armies, so Thorin can kill him before he dies "on-screen", but the climax of this movie wasn't really improved by putting him in the warg and trees battle, not if he was going to survive anyway. Either way, you just get orcs, wargs, trees, fire, eagles. The deaths of the orcs and wargs is completely unimportant, so why bother naming one of them and giving him a backstory if he's not going to do anything different in that scene? It would have felt exactly the same had they kept the first orc leader, the one Azog executed.I'm picking up a very strong Back to the Future vibe from this new trilogy. Re-use the score, re-use supporting characters in new scenes, re-use the ring falling on the finger shot, re-use the "two Gollums", re-use the ultimately unimportant orc/goblin/Uruk-hai boss in the final fight scene. As if the repetition of characters and tropes is supposed to be a big part of the joke. There sure were a lot of call backs (call forwards?), which, actually reminds me more of the Prequels, but there's no need dredging that up.The movie was pretty good overall, no better and no worse than the others (ok, clearly better than RotK), but I don't see how Jackson changed his approach at all, or how this is supposed to be more "for the fans" than LotR was. About the only thing that's different is, given the amount of padding needed, The Hobbit's Tom Bombadil (the troll scene) was left in, even though it's probably way too silly for mainstream audiences. The crowd I went with laughed at EVERYTHING - not just the actual jokes, they laughed at the Holm/Freeman transition, the first shot of the dwarves on horses, Elrond's first appearance, the goblin king, and even the shot of the damn thrush flying to Erebor cracked a number of them up (for the record, I did not smell any pot). But the troll scene didn't get even a single giggle out of them. I would have been fine had they omitted that entire scene; I was stunned at just how goofy it felt even in the book.So yeah, very, very similar to FotR. Similar pacing, very, very similar look, feel, and sound, similar baddies, similar character dynamics, similar ending. Less original aesthetics, but better effects. No better, no worse. I don't see why it's getting substantially less acclaim from the critics, unless they're just harping on the familiarity of it all.Which format did you see it in, Sofie? I saw it in 3D at 48 fps. I thought the 3D was still pretty bad whenever the "camera" was moving (which was the case with every 3D film I've seen other than Paranorman and Hugo), but it looked magnificent in the still moments. 2D would be the better way to go for those who care more about the action scenes, but 3D 48fps is better if you're more interested in the characters, the backdrops, the costumes, the colors, and the rest of the pretty.P.S. I liked Radagast, even though I've never seen Dr. Who.
12/13/2012 8:15:53 PM
Well, do bear in mind that Sofie loves everything.
12/13/2012 8:40:11 PM
No I don't.. Okay! Okay! i'll review some-thing I dislike greately in January or feburary, happy?
12/13/2012 8:41:56 PM
I look forward to your pain. :)EDIT: You don't have to subject yourself to something dreadful just to prove a point. Especially when it's clear that you're probably the happiest, most accepting, most open-minded "dork" on the internet. How on Earth can you stand the rest of us?
12/13/2012 8:52:36 PM
it's a television show and it's called "ultimate Spiderman." I could also review the movies "Green hornet." "Catwoman." "Jonah Hex." "The Hangover 2" the new "The Pink Panther." or what-ever, there are many possibilities.
12/13/2012 9:00:25 PM
Hmm....Pink Panther sounds fun. IF you like the original, that is. A detailed rundown of all the things the one gets right and the other...well...looks like it gets wrong. I don't think I've seen anyone do a review of that one either. And the more awareness vintage Peter Sellers gets, the better.'Course, I have another never-reviewed movie in mind, but I'm waiting to spring it on Mendo.
12/13/2012 9:09:58 PM
That can't be good...
12/13/2012 9:18:40 PM
Oh you needn't worry your pretty lil' wig. I don't go for the depraved, Brad Jones stuff (though, again, I do like Brad). I just know of a movie that I've long wanted to see someone review. I wouldn't be surprised if you've already seen it.
12/13/2012 9:24:20 PM
I grew up with and love the Peter Sellers movies, that's exactly why the new Pink Panther movie is so painful to me.
12/13/2012 8:51:03 PM
I prefer to think that she just doesn't make videos of the stuff she finds "icky."
12/14/2012 2:57:22 AM
12/14/2012 3:28:13 AM
Wasn't that a requested review, though?
12/14/2012 5:18:28 AM
No, she wasn't doing requested reviews at that point.
12/14/2012 5:46:45 AM
I started out with a very NC like based show where I reviewed stuff I mostly disliked such as Twilight, Alice in Wonderland, Wonder woman 2011, transformers ext. So now clearly that is not true, I don't love every-thing, I do make videos about stuff I find "icky." and I do some-times talk about stuff I don't like, just not these past four or so months.
12/13/2012 5:54:19 PM
Topping the Moria fight scene (cave troll, not Balrog) wouldn't be difficult. It's probably the most badly-dated part of the movies. Not the worst part, just the worst aged. The CGI is actually pretty bad by today's standards, just like the first Spiderman.I had already made up my mind that I would see this movie. I'm still going in with serious reservations, which I'm doing to deliberately not set my standards too high, since I would like to like it. How much of the movie is based on the Silmarillion? I've never read it, so I wouldn't know if I should attribute anything unfamiliar to Tolkien or to Jackson. And yes, that would make a big difference.
12/13/2012 6:21:47 PM
Well, I am talking both cave troll and them running the big halls while being chased by THOUSAND of orcs! change this to even more great halls, even more mountain, thousands of goblins instead of orcs.. I got a big call-back to how that stair thing collapsed in lord of the rings and they used that as a piece, only here, tons more stuff they stand on collaps, rocks rolls down, they barely escape several times, they run over tiny bridgest, dodges stones, having stuff collaps over them, fight goblins on the way, throw them down in a abyss... we get to figure out what would have happened if Indiana Jones hadn't out-run that boulder.... it's just freaking massive and a roller-coaster ride! As for how much is silmarillion.. urhm.. most of what you see that doesn't belong in the hobbit book actually. Ya see, first after the lord of the rings were released did Tolkion start to write how the Hobbit and The lord of the rings even connected in that whole "The world is about to end." thing.. they talk about the necromancer whom brings Sauron back.. which is some-thing only spoken of in Silmarilion, we meet the brown wizard Radagaf, which ones again, is a character only met in Silmarilion.. and they talk about how Moria exactly was conqoured which ones again is a story that belongs in silmarilion. Also, the story of the white orc, is a story.. which is taken from silmarillion and incorporated into this, probably to give us a villain, and all though he is well.. one dimensional (so was Sauron lets be fair.) he is a fair threateing figure, and gives Bilbo the oppertunity to.. well.. wait for it. So quite a lot of things actually.
12/13/2012 6:50:49 PM
It's not really the make or break part of Fellowship though. And I'm sure it can be vastly improved for the 100 or so DVD releases in the near future.
12/13/2012 7:04:22 PM
Once The Hobbit Part III is done, they're gonna re-do LotR for 3D, I'm certain of that. Unless maybe Jurassic Park 3D bombs. Which it won't. So yeah, they can fix it up then.
12/13/2012 9:36:57 PM
Oh god.. that Marathon there is going to happen where you watch ALL the hobbit movies and ALL the lord of the rings movies, Directors cut... I am going to need alooooot of coffee O.O
12/13/2012 4:40:35 PM
Thanks for the review, Sophie. I might see the film in theaters in a cheaper matinee.
12/13/2012 5:00:21 PM
Watch it! just.... watch it.
12/13/2012 4:33:55 PM
The hell? You got this one early too? It's 8:30 in the morning here, on a Thursday. I wasn't even expecting the video reviews to hit until tomorrow morning. Aaaaargh! Must not watch. Must not watch....
12/13/2012 5:00:08 PM
HAH! yes! this even took my a whole day to get out, I saw it yesterday, at Wednesday you sucker! my littlesister saw it even before me, the night between Tuesday and wednesday, so yeah :PAnd don't worry, this review is spoiler free.
Popular Right Now
All articles posted to the agony booth are the sole property of the author(s). Please do not copy/reproduce entire articles without permission. Screencaps from movies and TV shows are used for non-profit, fair use purposes of parody and commentary.
Star Trek and all related images and trademarks are the property of CBS Studios, Inc.
Reviewer icon artwork provided by Tai Porto, Aaron “McKnackus” Rivera, and Magdalen O’Reilly.